The sitting begun and suspended on Monday 31January2000 was resumed at 10.30am.

Agriculture Industry Crisis

Mr Speaker: There has been substantial interest in the motion that is coming up and substantial interest in speaking in the debate. I already have a long list, and I expect that it will get longer. I therefore see little option other than to make the same arrangements as were made for yesterday’s debate — to give the mover, DrPaisley, 10minutes to open and fiveminutes for his winding-up speech, the Minister 10minutes to respond prior to the winding-up, and fiveminutes for all other Members taking part. This will ensure that as many Members as possible will have the opportunity to contribute. I seek the leave of the Assembly to proceed in this fashion.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. This motion has the backing of the whole Committee, and I would have liked more time to introduce it. However, I appreciate that there is widespread interest among Members and that they have constituency interests. In the interests of the Committee, I am content — not happy — to accept the 10minutes, with the further fiveminutes at the end.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to DrPaisley for that.
Leave granted.

Rev Robert Coulter: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. I have no problem with the spirit of the motion; in fact, I will be supporting it wholeheartedly. However, I have some difficulty in understanding the intention of the expression in linethree. Is it singular or plural? Students of the classics will know that the word "crisis" comes from a Greek root. If, therefore, the intention is plural the spelling should be "crises". However, if the intention is singular the syntax is defective in that the indefinite article has been omitted — it should read "a serious crisis". For the sake of accuracy, I ask that the motion be corrected.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Member for drawing that to my attention and for giving me notice of it, which enabled me to check the original submitted by DrPaisley. It said "a serious crisis". There was an administrative typographical error, and we take full responsibility for that. When we reach the vote I will remind Members that the motion should read "a serious crisis". I hope that that clarifies the matter.

Mr Roy Beggs: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. I seek direction. I was one of the Members who had questions down for oral answer by the Health Minister yesterday. Questions finished, I think, at No3, and mine was No7. I went up to my pigeon-hole immediately after the debate, but there was no answer there. Nor is there an answer in Hansard. When may I expect to receive an answer?

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the House; it is an administrative matter in respect of the Executive. However, I will certainly explore the matter and try to get an answer for the Member.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I beg to move the following motion:
This House contends that the cuts in farm incomes, the market pressure on each sector of agriculture and the lawlessness of the French Government constitute a serious crisis in the NorthernIreland agriculture industry and calls on the NorthernIreland Executive to recognise this and take emergency measures to save the industry.
The agriculture industry is facing a very serious crisis, perhaps even a catastrophe, and I am not happy with the way in which the Department of Agriculture is handling this matter. Many of my friends in the farming community feel that the Department is acting against them and not for them. My views are known both to the Committee and to the Minister. The Minister should release herself from the trammels of her Department, take it by the neck and make it reverse the policies that have led to the ruination of the farming community.
This is not the time for a velvet tongue or soft words. Farming is the largest industry in NorthernIreland. It employs more people than any other industry, and it is dying. It is not a matter of it’s being on a life-support machine; the undertaker is waiting to measure the corpse and bury it. The Minister and her Department must now change their attitude towards this crisis. I have not found evidence of any change of mind in the Department — and I say that with regret, for I have a good relationship with the Department’s officials, but they just do not realise how serious this crisis is.
Recently I, along with some other Members, met bankers and meat processors. I asked the bankers how many of them were going bankrupt, but it seems that their incomes are tremendous. I also asked the meat processors if any of them were going bankrupt or preparing to commit suicide. They all laughed and said "Not at all. " I informed them that in the farming community, and especially in the pig industry, some farmers had already committed suicide. Many of the farmers are going bankrupt, and homes where their families have lived for generations are being sold over their heads.
Some of us are criticised when we stand up for the farmers. We are told that we are not interested in the consumers. The housewives of NorthernIreland have had no benefit. Indeed, they now pay more for their cuts of meat.
Agriculture is sick unto death, and we must do something to change this urgent situation.
I am not happy about what the PrimeMinister is going to say to farmers today. By standing among them and telling them to diversify what he is really saying is "There is no room for you in the farming community; go and do something else." And he is saying this without any offer of compensation and without any possibility of the farmers’ being able to diversify. A farmer might diversify if he could get planning permission, but all constituency workers know how hard this is to obtain. It is difficult for them to get planning permission to build on the farms where their families may have lived for 300years. All that the Prime Minister can say is "Diversify."
Something radical needs to be done. Those who support the farming cause have been blamed for being very strong in diagnosis and very weak in prescription, but there are things that could and ought to be done. First, we need a new entrants’ scheme to preserve the industry. There must be a future for farming. The Minister and her Department must now give an encouraging signal to new entrants. They must have some way of getting into farming. We must relax building control; we need a new special rural benefits structure; we need to initiate an agri-compensation scheme; we need to assist the Farmers’ Union and others in their battle to get low —- incidence BSE status; and we need a special injection of cash for pig projects. These are things that must be done.
Along with others who are interested, I have gone, cap in hand, to the Department and to successive Ministers. The Minister has, of course, inherited this situation — she is not responsible, and we are not blaming her for something she did not do. Nevertheless, we will blame her if she does not do something about it.
We have always been told that this cannot be done. I have been involved in Europe for 20years, and, without wishing to boast, I have some little experience of the European scene. If we were to exploit Europe in the way the Irish Republic does, the farming community would be far better off. We need to realise that there is, at present, money in Europe that we should be getting. DANI tells us that we cannot do this — of course, it is no longer called "DANI", but I am a Puritan still living in the Dark Ages. We no longer want to listen to their saying that we cannot do it.
The Southern Government did it, and to say that the compensation scheme under which pigs were bought is the same as this is nonsense. The twoschemes are entirely different; it is wrong to try to tell farmers that they are one and the same scheme and say to them "You have already got your money". It is wrong to say that we cannot go with a scheme like the one in operation in the IrishRepublic. We have to get something for the farmers, and we have to save our pig industry.
I put this question to the Minister: "Do you want there to be no pig industry in NorthernIreland?" Half of it has almost gone, and, in a few weeks, half of the remaining half will be gone. That is how serious the situation is. This is an emergency, and in an emergency, one does not do ordinary things, one does extraordinary things. Something extraordinary has to be done to help the farming community. Every effort must be made to save this industry.
Farmers are the custodians of our soil. I detest the environmentalist lobby who tell us that the farmers can leave and that they will look after the countryside. That is ridiculous nonsense. These environmentalists who say "We have a right to walk everywhere; we have a right to do this and a right to do that." are not thinking of the best interests of the custodians of the soil who, for generations, have kept this country going and ought to be honoured today. We should be determined, come what may, to do our level best to see that something is done.
The farmers that have come here today are not looking for nice words — they are looking for actions. This case can be easily made; we do not need to dwell on all of its complications or ramifications. Out there are decent people from both sides of the community who have invested their labour and their talents in order to help this country and keep it going, and they must be repaid. The talent in this Assembly, the talent in the Department, the talent of the Minister and the talent of our Committee must join forces. Let the message go out from this House that we are determined to save the farmers and to do the extraordinary if that is what is needed — and it is.

Mr George Savage: The latest figures from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development indicate that income from our agriculture industry fell by 22% between 1998 and 1999. It went down from £91million to £70million within oneyear. The total income from farming has fallen by 79% in fiveyears, with the knock-on effect of hundreds of millions of pounds being lost to our economy.
Northern Ireland is a very small country, and we cannot afford to continue with this level of economic decline in an agriculture industry that has a workforce of approximately 85,000people. I applaud the efforts that have been made by the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) to present reasonable policies to rescue an industry which has been drastically affected by a series of crises in the last few years.
Most recently, the French Government have chosen to become a law unto themselves by refusing to lift the ban on beef exports. Why should Ulster producers have to suffer because the French make a unilateral decision to ignore EU rules? Local producers have done everything required of them by the regulations. While the UK pursues the law-breaking French through the courts, it is not unreasonable to expect the UK Exchequer to aid local producers who are suffering as a consequence of France’s selfish and illegal actions.
I also support the UFU’s efforts to secure the release of the £50million to £60million of agri-money compensation which is available to us through EU-funding. Part of this funding is to protect common agricultural policy (CAP) area aid and livestock payments from the impact of the gap between sterling and the Euro. Another part is to offset the damage done to all farm commodities by the current strength of sterling. In both cases the release of the compensation funds depends on specific commitments and actions by the UKGovernment, and these have not been forthcoming.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to lobby her Westminster and EU counterparts on our behalf. This is not a demand for extra money. It is a demand for compensation which is already available and budgeted for. I ask the Minister to support the UFU’s campaign to gain low-incidence status for Northern Ireland in respect of BSE and to secure the implementation of exceptional measures such as a one-off rescue package for the local pig industry, similar to that which has recently been concluded by the EU and the IrishGovernment. It is essential that we establish and promote a province-wide "Buy Ulster" campaign.
Opinion polls conducted last year by a local consumer affairs organisation presented evidence which showed that twothirds of the population would buy local produce if it were available and reasonably priced. Almost half of those surveyed also said that they would be willing to pay a little extra for good quality local produce. However, the national supermarket chains which have moved in to Northern Ireland in the last few years either refuse to source from the local market or do so for a farmgate price, which is economically non-viable for the local producer. This is absurd and unjustifiable. The supermarkets could actually help the local producers and the local economy by raising the farmgate prices while freezing the retail prices. That might decrease their profits in the short term, but in the long term it would stimulate the local economy, please the consumer and contribute to larger profits at a later date.
The agriculture situation in NorthernIreland is more difficult than in other parts of the UnitedKingdom, not least because of the increased competition from across our land border with the Republic of Ireland.

Mr P J Bradley: I anticipated the comments made by other Members in their opening remarks, so I will try not to repeat them. Since joining the Agriculture Committee I have found a great willingness on the part of the Chairman and members to address the plight of the farming industry. I am pleased to put on record that I pay tribute to the sincerity of all members of the Committee.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I ask the Member to project his voice, as I am having some difficulty hearing.

Mr P J Bradley: I wish to pay tribute to our Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for her prompt actions and efforts to address the multitude of problems that faced her when she took office. In less than twomonths she has put a tremendous effort into tackling the ever-increasing problems of the farmers of NorthernIreland.
Ms Rodgers has taken up the problems of our fishermen. She has sought to have the aids to private storage scheme reopened and increased export refunds put in place on behalf of our pig farmers. These issues are of the utmost importance and must be worked at until a satisfactory outcome is achieved. Unfortunately, time is not on anyone’s side.
I wish to compliment the Minister on her decision, which MrSavage referred to, to seek special status for NorthernIreland in respect of BSE. The fact that we had only six recorded cases of BSE last year is surely a plus factor in her negotiations.
If a start could be made on exporting our calves that would lay the foundation for further improvement. In a short time the number of calves would reduce, thereby reducing the number of cattle being finished on farms. There would be better factory prices owing to the reduced availability of beef cattle.
This weekend I spoke with one major livestock expert who advised me that if the ban on live exports were lifted, he could be in business again within 24hours, exporting calves to Spain and Holland. We are as close as that. However, any resolution must start with the British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, NickBrown. In two recently published statements MrBrown praised the efforts of MinisterRodgers when she made strong pleas to him for special BSE status for NorthernIreland. When MrBrown puts our case to Europe I am confident that MsRodgers, together with my party leader, JohnHume, whose record in Europe goes without saying, and the other MEPs will be able to accumulate sufficient support in Brussels for the concessions being sought. In respect of the future of farmers in NorthernIreland, the ball is firmly back in NickBrown’s court.
It is fully recognised that many of the problems in agriculture are a result of a lack of interest on the part of the British Government. Their level of interest is on a par with the size of the NorthernIreland agricultural economy within the overall finances of the British Government. That is not good enough when thousands of our farmers are faced with financial ruin.
I wish to make a special plea to those Members — many of whom are not in the Chamber this morning — who perhaps have no great interest in our farming community but have set their sights on bringing down the Assembly. It is my view that whatever chance of survival our agriculture industry has will be achieved only through the combined efforts of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee and the Assembly. I do not believe that Nick Brown in London or the British Administration in Brussels will thank or support us if we fly in the face of the Government’s wishes regarding devolution. I ask everyone to think seriously about our position. I believe that if the Assembly fails, the farming industry will come down with it.
We are the only hope, the only friends and the only lifeline our farmers have. We must not fail them in their hour of need. We also have to get our priorities right. NorthernIreland farmers and rural dwellers will be here at noon today seeking whatever help the Assembly can give. To bring the Assembly down, or even to attempt to bring it down, would be the equivalent of closing doors in the face of the farming community. I am confident that the sentiments outlined in the motion will receive the full approval of the House.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. I want to address the issue of the agriculture crisis. The difficulty is that I have too short a time for my speech. We face a crisis, and I commend the farmers who are protesting.
There was a protest here by the NorthernIreland Agricultural Producers’ Association (NIAPA) about twoyears ago. That too was at a time of imminent crisis when prices were just as bad as they are now. Farmers should have put their foot down then and voiced their concern to the Government.
I hope it is not a case of bolting the stable door when the horse has gone.
There is a desperate situation in the rural and farming communities. Much debt has built up, and there is no respite in terms of a renewed price rise or help from the Government, or anyone else. There are a number of reasons for the crisis such as the difference between sterling and the Euro and the backlog of the BSE crisis which still affects us. There is also the question of exploitation. Since 1974 and beyond farmers have been exploited and are still being exploited. The UK Government exploited them for cheap food and their only respite was in time of war. They are currently being exploited by retailers, processors and everyone beyond the farm gate, and those people are making exorbitant profits at their expense.
The figures that we received yesterday show that farm incomes have hit rock-bottom because of low prices and unfairness. The Ulster Farmers’ Union states that only £1 in every £30 on the business, processing and farming side goes to the farmer. The average beef carcass is worth £400 to the farmer, but it will cost the consumer £1,200, so the consumer is not winning as a result of low farm prices. Some people claim that the consumer can gain from this situation, but neither the consumer nor the farmer is gaining. Someone else is gaining in a big way.
All the extras on the processing side such as £5 here and there were all traditionally passed back to the farmer as if he had a bottomless pit. Those industries should take their share of costs when the farmer puts his produce through their doors.
Why are we at this point? We are told about the problems of the BSE backlog. We talk about BSE being history, but we never had a high incidence of BSE in the North, and we do not have it now. We hardly register on the bottom of the graph whereas in Britain, the incidence of BSE goes through the top of the graph. It will be difficult to achieve BSE status here because of the fact that the regulations have become more stringent. We will never get over that barrier. As long as we are tied to the situation in Britain we are hanged in terms of getting out of the BSE dispute with Europe.
We were told by the Department of Agriculture that the changes in the regulations in respect of tags that were imposed on farmers would get us back in to the European market. We could not implement those changes, so the objective was unachievable. The Department agreed to regulations that are now crippling farmers and preventing them from getting to the markets.

Mr Speaker: Order. The time is up.

Mr P J Bradley: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. Will time be allocated to allow Members to join the group at the demonstration?

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. The situation is made absolutely clear on the OrderPaper. The debate is from 10.30am until to 12.30pm. What happens outside the Chamber is not my business, and I certainly cannot rule on it.

Mr David Ford: I am glad to support this motion and to add to the large measure of agreement. I see that some DUP Members welcome the fact that I agree with them occasionally.
They might have referred to the fact that the UK Government must take action as well as our own Executive. The information we received on incomes clearly shows the extent of the crisis that still exists in the UK. It has bottomed out in England, Wales and Scotland but is continuing to get worse in NorthernIreland. It is a disaster and is something which quite clearly needs particular attention here. However, that will be partly dependent on what NickBrown does in Whitehall.
I can understand why farmers question whether those in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development — either the Minister or her officials — know what is going on. According to the statement issued by the Department yesterday, a large measure of the drop in income is attributable to the rise in input costs. Unfavourable weather conditions resulted in an increase in the amount of feedstuffs and fertilisers purchased. I do not claim to be an expert in this sector, but I find it difficult to see how bad weather could have affected pig meat production which is down 13%, poultry production, which is down 6%, or egg production which is down 10%. I wish that the Department would stop covering up for what is going on in Whitehall and start arguing the case for farmers here.
Various measures are being proposed, and they may be of some benefit. Some people can diversify — but only some. The farmers’ market initiative may help a few people — but only a few. Some of the major schemes which are supposed to benefit all farmers in NorthernIreland are not producing the goods. DrPaisley was critical of the environmentalist lobby. I would be less so. There may be occasion when farmers will have to accept the fact that money which comes from agri-environment schemes may be the best way of maintaining incomes.
Let us look at agri-environment schemes — for instance, the new rural development regulation. An excellent briefing paper from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and two farm unions points out that this year, farmers are losing £3·9million because of existing baselines and because the Department’s budget has not kept up with its commitments. Next year we will see some of the modulated European money coming through. Of the £7·7million which ought to be going to farms, £5·7million is being creamed off — and I have heard people use worse words than that — in Dundonald House, and only £2·0million (25%) is going where it was designed to go. That is barely a quarter of the money which should be going to farmers for essential agri-environment schemes to benefit the environment and farm incomes. If that is a measure of the Department’s, complacency we need answers from the Minister quickly.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has talked about having meetings with the other UK Agriculture Ministers. That is one benefit of devolution. We can ensure that the interests we share with the Scots and Welsh are made known to NickBrown so that he is aware that the UK fringes are heavily dependent on livestock and are subject to difficult conditions with regard to export markets.
We also need to make sure that NickBrown is told that no other country of the UK shares a land frontier with "Euroland", with all the difficulties that that creates in terms of our economy compared to the Scots and the Welsh — whatever they are suffering. I was invited to visit some farms in mid-Wales last year, and, superficially, the similarities with the Sperrins or the Mournes are quite clear. Their farmers are certainly suffering as well. However, taking into account the issue of cross-border trade — or the lack of it — it is clear how much more suffering there is in Northern Ireland and how much greater the need for our Minister to make this clear to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
There is a major threat to our society. It is ludicrous to suggest that the future of rural areas in places like south Antrim or north Down is as a sort of commuter bungalow land, or in areas like the Mournes or Sperrins or the FermanaghLakes is as a weekend bungalow land. The only way we will maintain a viable society in rural areas is to maintain viable farms as the basis of those societies. Without those farms the businesses, the schools, the shops and the post offices will go, and we will be left with completely dead wasteland. That is the crisis we face unless the Minister takes action.

Mr Patrick Roche: Farming is the largest industry in NorthernIreland. It accounts for 10% of employment and 8% of gross domestic product. The industry is in a serious crisis — total farm income fell by 22% last year, and over a five-year period the fall has been 80%. Together with the fall in income, the agriculture sector owes the banks approximately £520million — a veritable debt mountain. Over the last five years approximately £600million has been taken out of the local economy, and there has been an exodus from farming. Only about 7% of those currently involved in agriculture are under 35years of age.
The BSE crisis has virtually closed off our export markets, and the control measures, whatever their merits, introduced by the Government have imposed considerable costs on agriculture. An overwhelming case can be made for giving NorthernIreland special treatment in respect of both exports and compensation to make up for the costs incurred as a result of the control measures. Statistics show that for 1999 the incidence of BSE per million head of adult cattle in NorthernIreland was 14·2; in the Republic it was 22; and in Great Britain it was 513. This shows that NorthernIreland has had the lowest incidence of BSE and should be given low incidence-BSE status for export purposes.
I recognise the difficulties faced by the Minister. As a region in the UK, Northern Ireland does not have that status already because of the agriculture politics in the rest of the UK. We then have the greater problem of the politics in the EU which are putting the French in the position of trying to keep a total export ban on British beef.
Another cause of the crisis is the weakness of the Euro. Our export prices are becoming uncompetitive, and the import prices are making it difficult for us to compete in our home market. All of this means that farm income in NorthernIreland is at an historically low level. One immediate source of alleviation would be the agri-monetary compensation package for the year 2000, which is approximately £450million. Twentypercent — about £88million — has been used, so there is £360million left for the rest or the year for the UK as a whole. As I understand it, that would give about £50million to agriculture in NorthernIreland.
The farming community will have to take immediate steps to strengthen its position in the market with the supermarkets and food processors. It should not rely on the Government. An industry that relies on the Government has written the recipe for its own destruction.
The action taken by the Executive to date —rather, the inaction — demonstrates a total absence of any coherent policy or strategy to deal with this situation. Twoweeks ago the FirstMinister announced that he had put a proposal for a £100million aid package for agriculture to the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: Order. The time is up.

Mr Boyd Douglas: I support the motion. The House should realise the implications of the crisis in farming for the Province’s economy as a whole. Falling farm incomes are jeopardising the sustainability of farming, the countryside and the rural economy, and this inevitably will have Province-wide repercussions.
By way of introduction, and to illustrate the severity of the situation, let me give an example. Dairy farming was for many years thought to be the best of farming enterprises, but the agriculture industry has reached such a crisis point that many dairy farmers, despite having 100cows, are struggling to stay in business, and a lot of them are depending on family credit to put food on the table.
Make no mistake: the writing is on the wall for many farming families unless they are given a fair deal. Serious difficulties in the agricultural sector and in the rural economy have largely been the result of forces beyond their control. For example, agricultural fuel prices have almost doubled in the last year. Furthermore, the exchange rate — particularly the strength of sterling — affects the farming community in a way which cannot and should not be underestimated.
The House should be mindful that since agriculture support measures and direct payments are in Euros, changes in sterling are applied almost immediately. Therefore both domestic and export prices are seriously affected by the strength of the pound sterling in the exchange rate. This is especially the case since a sizeable percentage of agricultural income is generated by exportation into Europe, and, consequently, the stronger the pound sterling, the less competitive are British products.
This, along with the BSE crisis, has meant that farmers find themselves in a great deal of debt with no conceivable means of repayment. Animals with little or no value will invariably become a liability, and so the farmers’ financial situation continues in a downward spiral. This has led, as was mentioned earlier, to desperation and a sense of hopelessness which has driven many farmers to suicide.
That is not to say that there has not been help. Much emphasis has recently been put on rural development through locally forged partnerships which are EU-funded. In short, this is not enough. Although some farmers at local level have benefited from receiving funding for innovative ideas, this type of initiative will not be sufficient to sustain and retain the majority of those who live in rural areas.
It is all very well to praise rural dwellers and tell them that they are the custodians of the countryside, but mainstream farming should be profitable and maintained at a level where re-investment is possible.
British farmers are in a more difficult position than workers in any other sector in the UnitedKingdom, and the British Government have failed to compensate the agriculture industry during the last fouryears. The UnitedKingdom was notably the only member state of the European Union not to do so. The Labour Party manifesto in the last general election supported radical reform, but it has not delivered. The British Minister for Agriculture, NickBrown, said that compensation to help farmers over the changes would be generous, but he has broken his word. Broken promises appear to be the only consistent factor in the new Labour Party policy.
As has been mentioned, there has been speculation that the Prime Minister will inform representatives of the National Farmers’ Union that no financial help will be made available to farmers to see them through the present crisis. Furthermore, he thinks that they ought to diversify and seek alternative sources of income aside from the money required to speculate to accumulate. Were 533,000farmers to diversify, a crisis would be created in more sectors than one. The Agriculture Committee has encouraged the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to do all in her power to rectify this by lobbying in London.
I urge the Assembly to support the Minister, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the National Farmers’ Union to work together to ensure that the full agri-money compensation which is due to the farming community and which was established to protect all European farmers is paid. I support the motion.

Mr David Ervine: We have heard and will continue to hear more and more statistics. These add to the gloom and difficulty being experienced by the agricultural economy that seems to be under attack from every quarter. There are difficulties that come from Europe; there is the inability of a British, so-called Labour Government to move away from the advocated laissez-faire economic culture; and there is the apathy which exists among the NorthernIreland public.
We have seen the problems caused by companies who import every single item for their shops — not just a large percentage of their goods but every single item. I have been told that such a company has set up in Dungannon in spite of there being a hinterland full of suffering farmers. It does not matter whether they be sheep, pig, dairy or beef farmers, they are all trying to work the land and are struggling in economic difficulty.
What about helping ourselves? In the negotiations we had an opportunity to think about helping ourselves, yet we denied ourselves the ability to have tax-varying or tax-raising powers. This means that we now have the begging bowl out once again. We are holding out the begging bowl to Westminster and to Europe. Frankly, however, we are not doing very well because the laissez-faire economic culture is stronger in the hallowed halls of Westminster than any argument that we have yet made. And unless we are going to kick doors in at Westminster—

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Member accept that by revaluing the green pound we would not need to go anywhere with the begging bowl? That would help farmers in the UK at no cost to local taxpayers, although there would be a cost to the European Community but taking such action would bring funds to our farmers which all other farmers are getting.

Mr David Ervine: I do not disagree with the Member at all, but we need to look at the position we are in. The reason all these people are in the Galleries is that they hope that we can help them by delivering something better than what they currently have. Long-term ideas are all right, but if people are leaving the land and contemplating suicide, as we heard earlier, if difficulties and incomes are as bad as all that, we need to act now.
I come from an urban background, and the perception is that I have no concept of the difficulties of the agricultural community. We live in a country that is 90miles long and 90miles wide, and its economy affects all of us. For that reason I say that the situation is intolerable. If people working on a factory floor were bringing home what those in agriculture are bringing home, there would be an outcry. No one — but no one — would tolerate it, yet not only do we tolerate it, but we go to the shops and purchase goods which are putting our people out of business. We should demand that shopkeepers stock at least a certain percentage of goods produced in Northern Ireland. It is all very well to say nice words, but we need to do something.
First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers are afraid to agitate because of European attitudes to free enterprise and open borders. However, it is perfectly reasonable for a trade union or a farmers’ union to agitate and to continue to agitate until the people of NorthernIreland know that until we can kick down doors in Europe and at Westminster and be listened to and answered, the only option we have is self-help. That is our only option at present.
If Members intend to tackle the distressing circumstances of the agricultural economy, they had better think about doing it very soon. We had better think of cross-party support for the people who are suffering. We had better think of ways to fund trips to Europe and of ensuring that we are in Westminster at every conceivable opportunity to make people take notice.
There is a great deal of criticism of the French. I do not advocate that we go to the same lengths as the French do, whether they be truck drivers or farmers, but they sure as hell make their Government sit up and take notice. What do we do? We speak in platitudes; we say the farmers have our support, and meanwhile, back at the ranch, these people are continuing to suffer.

Mr Speaker: Order. The time is up.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Women’s Coalition supports this motion. We recognise the crisis in the farming industry. Every Member who has spoken has talked of the soaring figures, of terrible debt, of children leaving farms and of the drastic cut of up to 80% in farmers’ income. We are aware of it, and we recognise that it is drastic. This is not crying wolf; this is a genuine crisis. We can all see that. We give our full support to the appeal being made by farmers, by those gathered outside this building today, for what DrPaisley has called an "extraordinary" approach to this crisis.
Why do farmers need our support? It is not merely a matter of jobs or individuals. We are faced with the possible death of our rural communities and traditions. It has been said here today that we must protect the social fabric of the rural economy. DavidFord said that it is about post offices, banks and market towns — our rural economy and people.
We must protect them. Many a farmer would call me a city slicker, but this is not a matter of the rural-dweller versus the city dweller. We must not forget that when farm incomes are cut and the young men and women of farming families have to leave, this sparks rural depopulation, thus putting pressure on cities. Calls are made in towns and cities for the green belt to be protected. In spite of this, more accommodation is needed because rural areas are being depopulated. This is not a matter of country versus city. No matter where we live, all of us in NorthernIreland must recognise that the farming community has to he helped.
PaddyRoche talked about the main causes, and I should like to dwell on these for a moment. There is no doubt that the two main causes are the fallout from the BSE crisis and the strength of sterling. I ask the Assembly and the farmers whose fault this is.
Let us turn to the BSE crisis. I know all about this, for I was involved in the European Commission at that time. The Government did not stick to the rules on BSE set down by Europe. They bent those rules and farmers are now being expected to accept responsibility for that.
Who is to blame for the strength of sterling? It is not the fault of the farmers. What can they do? Perhaps we could look more seriously at allowing NorthernIreland to enter the Euro-zone as a pilot project. Perhaps farmers would support that.
Neither of these problems is the fault of farmers. The Government must accept responsibility. We cannot accept NickBrown or TonyBlair saying that farmers must diversify. We have heard about the golf courses and the bed-and-breakfast businesses. That is not good enough. We need a concerted approach to protecting the rural community.
I should like to send a message of support to farmers and their families. I support this motion. As I close, I should like to remind the House of DrPaisley’s words this morning. These farmers are
"decent people from both sides of the community."
We must do something for them.

Mr Robert McCartney: Everyone in the House is united on this issue. All the interesting and informative speeches have illustrated the grievous plight of the farming industry. They have explained in great detail the reasons for that plight. What are we going to do about it? It is all very well for each of us to say that the plight of the farmers is awful. The crisis exists, and the reasons for the crisis are the strength of sterling and BSE. That does nothing for the farmer, though it may exorcise the guilt we feel at our impotence.
The truth is that this Assembly can do very little to alleviate the effects of the farming crisis, which is due to many circumstances totally beyond our control. Perhaps the best statement made was on what the people of NorthernIreland can do for themselves. It is true to say that any industry, including the farming industry, which relies on the munificence of the Government for its future is on a hiding to nothing. What we can do is focus the attention of the entire community on the fact that if it does not support its own producers then it is unlikely that anyone else will. Interposed between the consumer and the farmer is the retailer. The retailing industry in NorthernIreland has been transformed over recent years by the introduction of the multi-national supermarket chains. They came here when things were getting better. They supplanted the local traders who had kept business going throughout 30years of internecine warfare in NorthernIreland, but the introduction of the large supermarkets has laid waste to a great many small traders in a number of small towns.
The real question is: what can we do to ensure, insofar as it is possible, that those retailers support the produce of the people from whom they are extracting their profit? Anyone who goes into Tescos or Sainsbury’s should know that it is acknowledged throughout Europe generally that the major food chains in the UnitedKingdom are making far higher profits than their counterparts in Europe, and they are making those profits largely at the expense of the producers. They go through the fraud of labelling their goods "Sourced in NorthernIreland" — not "Produced in NorthernIreland" — but "Sourced in NorthernIreland". That covers a multitude of sins, including purchasing from agents who are in NorthernIreland but who source their produce from abroad.
If this Assembly can do one thing, it can alert the electorate to the fact that if they do not support their own farmers and buy produce clearly labelled as being produced by farmers in NorthernIreland, then they are destroying a large part of their own economy.
In broad terms, Europe does what suits the major members of the European Commission. They can forget about the fines that were levied on Italy for milk quota frauds. They can turn a blind eye to Spain injecting capital directly into IberiaAirlines. They can do whatever they want, and unless we ensure that we back our own people then, as some of the Members have said, NorthernIreland will be turned into a farming waste land. Golf courses and other leisure amenities will dominate the countryside, but the farmer will be destroyed.

Mr Billy Armstrong: It is good to see some familiar faces from the farming community in the Galleries today. I know that it is not every farmer who can afford to leave his livestock for a few hours to attend rallies and listen to debates in the Assembly. I recognise the sterling work done by WillTaylor and DouglasRoe of the Ulster Farmers’ Union.
Agriculture is the largest single industry in NorthernIreland. However, figures released yesterday show that total farming income has fallen by 79% since 1995 — an astounding statistic. Farmers in less favoured areas are realising an average annual income of £179. Our farmers now owe approximately £523million to banks, and this figure continues to increase. Farm incomes in NorthernIreland decreased by 22% in 1999, compared to an estimated 1% in the UK as a whole. We can clearly see that NorthernIrish agriculture does not get a high priority with the UK Government, and we cannot let this situation continue.
Approximately 60,000people are employed in this vital industry. Since £572million has been removed from NorthernIreland’s economy over the last five years, it must be brought home to the Government that NorthernIreland is no less important than any other region. Other parts of the UK are more industrialised, and agriculture is less important to them. The Government do not value this industry or consider it worth saving. Other major industries receive financial help in times of crisis.
Northern Ireland has always had high health and welfare standards, dating back to the days before the EC. We had stringent legislation on the importing of agricultural products. When we became part of the European free market, products of lower quality came into NorthernIreland. We are well known for our excellent traceability records and distinguished levels of health, welfare and efficiency, as well as for the high genetic value of our livestock.
Northern Ireland farmers have complied with all the EU legislation on health and welfare standards. They were promised a premium for their products, only to find inferior products from other parts of Europe on our supermarket shelves. Fancy packages and low prices seem to appeal more to the consumer. Premium prices were not realised, and all hopes of recovering the money invested have been dashed.
Furthermore, UK companies have imported certain products whose health and welfare standards do not match our high standards, and that has created unfair competition. These products have also been cheaper. In NorthernIreland we had only six cases of BSE in 1999. France recognised about 30cases in 1999. We had only 27cases in 1997, yet the French refuse to buy British beef. It is totally unfair that our high-quality products cannot be exported across Europe. It is time that we were treated as a low incidence area for BSE.
We are all aware of Holland’s lucrative market for bull calves. As an exporting area, it has been very important and beneficial to us to export products that are in short supply in other countries. At present, these calves are worth £70 to £100 in the IrishRepublic and are being exported from there to Europe. It could be said that there are more cases of BSE in the IrishRepublic.
I am particularly concerned about our pig farmers. They have not been able to cover their costs for the last 20months. Many face debts of £200,000; some owe as much as £500,000 to the banks and meal companies. None of the Government bodies seems to want to do anything to alleviate this problem. The importing of pork and bacon products which are of a lower standard than similar products produced in NorthernIreland should be discontinued. There should be a level playing field.
The Minister met some young farmers in my constituency threeweeks ago. The farmers revealed their private, painful stories and personal bank statements.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I must close then —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Eddie McGrady: As has already been said, all parties in the House will support the farming community in this emergency. I fear that the fact that it is an emergency has not been communicated properly to the community. I can repeat, as can every other Member, the horrendous statistics on the fall in incomes, the lack of revenue and the higher costs which have been reproduced for the first time, almost coincidentally, throughout all sectors of the community.
Political representatives and representatives of farmers’ unions have failed to convey the enormity of the situation to the general public — the consumers. First, as MrRoche has said, farming is a base industry involving 10% of the civil population and accounting for 8% of GDP. What other country would allow that volume of industry to be sacrificed? Secondly, the farming community is the custodian of our heritage, rural communities, land and environment. Are we going to jettison those as well? The problem is that the same criteria are being applied to Northern Ireland’s agriculture as are being applied to agriculture in the UK, where it is not an important economic factor — and Members need to face this. The Government’s response reflects that.
In some respects that is why we have failed to inform the European conscience of our drastic situation. Our local Minister and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must put pressure on Whitehall to insist that the national Government take this issue seriously and save this base industry by a special dispensation or arrangement within the EU to reflect our special circumstances. That must happen as a matter of urgency. Europe knows that this is a huge problem. The recent Eurostat report indicates quite clearly that NorthernIreland incomes, and indeed UK incomes as a whole, fell dramatically in the years from 1995 to 1998. Europe knows this from its own statistics, so it really is time to "kick in that door", as one Member so elegantly put it.
There is no point in Members debating the statistics, horrendous though they may be. The forecast for 1999-2000 is of net loss to farming incomes throughout the community. Members, and the farming community, cannot tolerate that. The community can tolerate loss for only one or two years at most. The rescue package must then be in place to help the community out of that morass and into prosperity.
Members should not adopt the pessimistic attitude that nothing can be done. Similarly, the repetition of statistics will not energise us. We must make suggestions. There should be special arrangements in Europe to address a special problem. Other national Governments can do it, so our national Government should also be able to do it. The agri-monetary compensation must be claimed and released to farmers in proportion to their requirements, particularly in this region.
The reassessment of the green pound has already been mentioned, and that should be done. At home, the financial institutions, which are servicing the £520million deficit must give special consideration to farmers. For decades, the high street banks have ridden on the gravy train thanks to the Agriculture and other industries; now it is their turn to feel some pain as well. Arrangements to rescue the farmers need to be agreed.
Restructuring may be required. The agricultural retirement scheme, which is available in the Republic of Ireland, must be made available here to allow good economic restructuring to take place. I would like to see a task force established immediately in NorthernIreland involving representatives from the relevant Government Departments: Agriculture and Rural Development; Enterprise, Trade and Investment; Health, Social Services and Public Safety; and Environment.
It should urgently investigate this issue on a cross-departmental basis and produce a plan to alleviate the problems. Merely tinkering with the problem of diversification or environmental improvements will not help. We must be more dramatic in our approach.

Mr Speaker: Order. The time is up.

Mr Edwin Poots: I do not intend to concentrate on the agriculture industry’s problems — they have been well covered already. We are all aware of the £520million farming debt and the fact that only 7% of farmers are under the age of 35. What we need are solutions. The PermanentSecretary is in the House, and although we do not know what the future of the Assembly will be he will still hold his position whether AlfDubs or BrídRodgers is the Minister. There is more responsibility on the PermanentSecretary’s shoulders than on anybody else’s.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development needs a radical shake-up. Farmers have had regulations imposed on them over the years, regulations that have been implemented and policed by the Department, yet the same Department has not managed to deliver a full lifting of the BSE ban. We need to see that we get low-incidence status quickly. Is it right that the Irish Republic, which has many more cases of BSE than NorthernIreland, can export calves and get £130per head when farmers from NorthernIreland have to pay to get their calves slaughtered? How can France continue to export beef when they have more incidences of BSE than NorthernIreland? It is time that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development put the case of the NorthernIreland farmers to Brussels and Strasbourg. Farmers have applied all the regulations; now it is time for the Department to deliver.
The European sheep meat regime should also be looked at. Has the Department ever asked Brussels to look at it? The Government in the Irish Republic have asked for the regime to be changed. Last week, it was announced that sheep farmers are to get an annual subsidy of £13·48. Given that lamb prices are lower than they have been for fiveyears, I would have expected that that subsidy would have been over £20. However, because the system under which the sheep meat regime operates is unjust, we are given less compensation than we should.
We need a strong implementation of policy on the importation of potatoes. NorthernIreland is presently importing potatoes that are of a lower standard than those produced here. Disease standards are not being maintained. The imported potatoes are not subject to the same standard scrutiny for brown rot disease as is applied to NorthernIreland potatoes. There is a danger that this disease could be brought into NorthernIreland and ruin the local potato industry.
The Department has handed out money in FEOGA grants to two firms to expand their potato marketing operation. They have imported thousands of tonnes of potatoes from Scotland and Europe, and this has driven down the price of potatoes in the Province. Farmers now have to sell potatoes at £20per tonne, because the Government have paid for these firms to build cold stores. It is not the Department’s role to improve the marketing conditions of firms in Northern Ireland; its role is to improve the marketing conditions for farmers in general.
The Department must get its act together and work on behalf of the NorthernIreland farmers. Time and time again new regulations are introduced. I can recall the introduction of the Maedi-Visna regulations. There was no a need for those regulations to be introduced, but, as there were obviously surplus staff in the Department’s veterinary service, this was a good way to keep them occupied. We are spending more on the administration of agriculture than farmers make in profit. It is time for the Department to get its act together. The farmers are doing their bit. No more regulations should be imposed on them, for they cannot afford to implement the regulations. The Department should go to Brussels and fight the NorthernIreland farmers’ case. There is no point in blaming others; the main reason for our problems is the Department’s inadequate representation of the farmers’ case.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Like my Colleague GerryMcHugh, I support the motion. At the outset, MrSpeaker, I would like to say that the philosophy of "ourselves alone" has been well ventilated this morning, so I will not dwell on it.
The crisis in the agriculture industry is very real — not for me, but for the farmers and their families who are suffering as a result of it. I welcome the farmers and their families who are here this morning.
Much has been made of the connection between the North and the South. I am not trying to make a political point, but had the agriculture industry in Ireland acted as a single unit, 10, 15 or even 20years ago, then the present agriculture crisis would not be as severe as it is. One has only to look at the agriculture industry in the Free State to know that they milked the system, very astutely and acutely, while we were tied in to British agricultural policy within the EU. Consequently, the only people who suffered were the farmers of the North of Ireland. Had we gone forthrightly into the agriculture sector in Europe as a single unit, then we would not be facing the crisis that we face today — or at least it would not be as bad. Agriculture is in crisis universally, but I believe that we would not be facing the crisis that we are facing had we acted as a single unit.
I would like to turn to the schemes that were inaugurated to help farmers — the ESA scheme in particular. Prior to Christmas, I was inundated with calls from farmers who had still not received their ESA payments. These were due in August, and by December they still had not been paid. It was the people on small farms who were suffering. They needed the money not only to buy fodder, but to run their homes. When one of them rang the Department he was told that the payments had not been made because the computers were down. So there is a new excuse being given now. It is no longer "The cheque is in the post"; it is "The computers are down". That was the excuse given. Those schemes need to be seriously and rigorously looked at to ensure that if farmers are participating in such schemes they are paid the amount of money that has been guaranteed to them — and on time.
The situation in respect of rural planning is a disgrace, and something must be done about it. Time after time the Department refuses planning permission to the sons and daughters of farmers who are seeking to develop their own land, because this does not fit into the environment. What other environment is it going to fit into? They are living in the country. Is it spoiling the countryside? What is the real reason? I accept that there must be planning controls, but those controls should not be so rigorously applied in relation to rural planning.
Additionally, when a farmer who has a small piece of useless ground seeks planning permission for it in order to sell it — there is nothing wrong with that, because the land is useless, and he is looking for some other form of income — he is refused. That is an issue that needs to be looked into urgently.
My Colleague and others have mentioned the issue of consumers paying top prices for bacon, beef, lamb, poultry and other agricultural produce while producers receive the lowest prices. Someone, somewhere has to put in place a mechanism which investigates this, and one which puts some controls on the prices that consumers are paying as compared with the money that producers are receiving. Realistically these are things which should be looked at now, and a way should be found to alleviate the problems that exist in the farming community in the short term.
To link the agricultural crisis with the present political crisis is a crass piece of political opportunism. We are talking here about an industry that is in crisis. We are talking about a whole population that is in crisis and a countryside that has been denuded of its population. We should be trying to address life-support measures — and addressing them seriously — not trying to make a political point.

Mr James Leslie: When addressing problems in the agriculture sector we must do so in the context that it is, in most respects, the last-state controlled industry. The snag is that it is not state-owned, and therefore the state is not responsible for the wages or costs of the industry. But the state controls the output prices by way of a mixture of policy, action, inaction and the subsidy process. The common agricultural policy has essentially distorted the market in agricultural produce, and not always to our disadvantage. Sometimes the markets have been distorted to the farmers’advantage, and the subsidy system tries to correct that, but it distorts the market further.
When the Agenda2000 proposals were originally produced they were flagged up as being an attempt to address these distortions and gradually restructure the industry to make it more responsive to market forces. Unfortunately, such an outcome did not emerge from the negotiations this time around. While there was some short-term relief, I question whether there will be a long-term benefit. A House of Lords Select Committee looked at the problems in the agriculture sector and said
"If the long-term prospect of adjustment to globally competitive agriculture is not to cause great and prolonged hardship, it is critical that the reorientation of the industry to a position where it can compete successfully is commenced as soon as possible. If not, change may be thrust upon the industry at an unnecessarily painful pace."
It seems that we are in the latter scenario. It is a great pity that the expertise that was available when the report was made is no longer available to the House of Lords.
The Treasury is no friend of the common agricultural policy, which consumes over half of the total European Union budget. As the UnitedKingdom is a net contributor to that budget, the only way it can see its net contributions falling is if it can reduce expenditure on the common agricultural policy. Therefore the interests of the Treasury are completely contrary to those of the farmer. Unfortunately, the Treasury is much more powerful.
I urge the Minister to address the restructuring of the industry to see what the Department can do to help this process. She should also address the £45million of the Department’s budget, which is flexible and which relates to teaching, advisory and technical services. We are turning out very competent farmers, but we may have made them competent in a sphere from which they cannot make money. I urge the Minister to see whether the curriculum is able to produce the right skills for the market into which agriculture is moving.
The words "restructuring" and "diversify" are used too loosely. There are some opportunities, but it is hard to see that there will be enough for everyone. I welcome the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee’s intention to look into freshwater fishing. Farmers fortunate enough to have land along a river bank might want to turn to that as a possible source of future revenue.
I mentioned earlier that farming is essentially the last nationalised industry. When the steel industry, the car industry, and the coal industry were restructured and returned to the private sector the Government provided a very considerable cushion for the workforce. The situation is analogous to agriculture, but because farmers are self-employed, there is no onus on the Government to provide any such cushion. The Government should look very carefully at their duties in this regard, because they control much of the output price, and that is what governs the success of the industry. That is why MrSavage presented his "soft loan" scheme — not to subsidise farmers, but to help soften the process of change. The Government must also provide a cushion and an incentive for the farming industry.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: The farming industry needs practical and financial support, and it needs it now. Otherwise the family farming tradition, so typical of NorthernIreland, will fade away, and we will have other consequences to contend with. Members know that, owing to the fall in farming prices, this crisis impacts on the wider community. Farmers have less disposable income.
In the last threeyears more than £100million has been lost to the local economy as a result of this crisis. It is causing particular difficulty in my constituency of Fermanagh and SouthTyrone, as farming has always been a more difficult enterprise there because of the climate and the soil. Indeed, 30% of the CountyFermanagh workforce is involved in agriculture. Members will agree that that is a much higher percentage than in any other part of NorthernIreland.
In the UK, the average percentage of the workforce involved in agriculture is a mere 2%. We have a large number of small farms and a small number of large farms. Farm incomes are measured in terms of standard gross margin (SGM). The SGM for farmers in County Fermanagh is 14·7, in County Antrim 25·5, and in County Down 22·3. But all farming communities need alternative employment opportunities and part-time employment opportunities.
I commend the Minister for beginning to put in place a new strategy for agriculture and rural development. I reject what MrRoche said with regard to the present Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development and her record. He was talking nonsense. The Minister needs the support of the Executive and she needs to link in to other Departments in order to provide more opportunities for those who run our farming industry.
Until now, worthwhile ideas coming from the farming community have had little encouragement from the NorthernIreland Tourist Board. Look at the importance of tourism in Fermanagh and the importance of good co-operation between the farming community and those promoting tourism.
Another employment agency responsible for small businesses is LEDU. Why have better links not been developed between LEDU and the farming community? Why have some of the good ideas for enterprises on farms not had LEDU’s support? This needs further investigation by the Executive.
It has already been said that rural planning policy is a major obstacle. However, it is not just in relation to housing, as my Colleague JohnKelly said. Any farmer who wants to embark on a new enterprise runs into an obstacle right away when he seeks planning permission in rural areas. He is invariably told it cannot be done.
The Minister and the Executive can iron out many of these problems. Both anti-agreement and pro-agreement Members will have failed to live up to their responsibilities under the agreement if there is a return to direct rule, for our farmers will suffer more than they have ever done.
12.00

Rev William McCrea: I have listened with care to the debate so far, and we have all heard the Prime Minister say that he is going to tell farmers that they will have to diversify, but I do not know how many of them are going to be able to diversify. Many will be bankrupt, so what are they going to diversify with?
Farmers want to farm their land; that is what they were brought up to do, and they should be able to get on with it. They understand the problems of other sectors of industry. Take, for example, the textile industry. Many farmers’ families are also feeling the pinch there, because many of their children have worked in the textile firms that are closing down. The farming industry in this Province is haemorrhaging seriously, and the Department is seeking to put a sticking plaster over the problem.
The crisis in pig farming has been going on for many months. We do not have to gather the facts; they are already there. If officials in the Department do not know the facts about the pig industry, something is seriously wrong, and it is about time that they vacated their positions and let others take over. We have to take this matter to where it really counts.
In the midst of this crisis I am sick, sore and tired of hearing from one person after another that there is nothing they can do. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I know she did not make the problem, but she now has the responsibility for handling it — we do not need the parroting of official lines. All we hear is that there is nothing that Europe allows the Minister to do. Why can nothing be done? What are the French doing? Are they not supposed to be the great Europeans? They are saving their farming industry. They are pouring money into it, and they will save their pig and other sectors. Of course, we hold up our hands and self-righteously say "There is nothing that Europe will allow us to do." That is absolutely disgusting.
We do not have just the strong pound problem, the BSE problem, the offal payments, the differential in meal, electricity and water costs; we also have the unfair differential between the price our farmers get for their products and what others get in the remainder of the UnitedKingdom. We are fed up with people telling us that there is nothing they can do. There must be a financial package for this. Farmers are going to be totally bankrupt. Many of them have gone as far as they can possibly go, and all we are saying to them is that there is nothing we can do.
I heard it said today that tax-raising powers would be the answer. Whenever there is a problem and a factory is being closed, are taxes raised to bring in the money? Not at all; money is sought from the Exchequer. GordonBrown’s Exchequer is filled with money ready for a general election — they have to hand out the goodies and buy people off at election time. The money is there — you do not have to raise taxes to get the money; the money is already in the coffers. The problem is this: they are unwilling to cover pound for pound, and the farmers are going down. It may seem funny to some people, but I have had farmer after farmer sitting in my constituency office crying about his situation, and no one is willing to do anything about it. The Minister should go to Europe and say that we were told that everyone was dying to help us in Ulster because we have this Assembly going. Let them put their money where their mouths are. Let them prove themselves by backing us and allowing farmers to survive instead of going under.
GordonBrown told us that he was urgently looking at offal charges, that he was willing to back us and that he believed that he could do something about them. Farmers were given the same answer, but we are still awaiting his help.
What about the special BSE status? NickBrown said that he would back our Minister if a presentation were made. My party leader, representatives from the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party and I were told by NickBrown that he would instruct his officials to work with our officials to get that presentation.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat.

Mr Francie Molloy: A Chathaoirligh, go raibh maith agat. I agree with the motion, and I support it. It is important to recognise that there is a crisis in the entire industry. I agree with DrPaisley that the BritishPrimeMinister’s call for people to diversify is not the answer. It may be the answer for some, but not for everyone. What would they diversity into? Where will the money come from? Is the PrimeMinister prepared to ensure that the money going into industry will be transferred to agriculture? Will he make sure there is money available for farmers who want to diversify and that they will get the planning permission, which MrGallagher talked about, to set up an industry in the rural community?
Farmers want to be on the farm, and they want to be producers. To most farmers diversification into some other industry of which they have no experience is not an option. Diversification, if it is to take place, will have to be into something associated with land and farming.
The main problem — and I am not making a political point — is that we in the SixCounties are linked to Britain. Britain is an industrial country, and it does not have any great interest in agriculture. It has an industrial base, which it wants to preserve. Britain has not made the case for our farmers in Europe, as was best illustrated during the BSE crisis when they failed to represent farmers. It is important to recognise that we will have to work within our own base. No one else will speak on our behalf.
As DrPaisley said, we need to make the link with those who have exploited Europe to the full — the Twenty-six County Government. They have shown how to get the most out of Europe — by putting the least in, as some people would say. We must ensure that the IrishGovernment, as a European Member, produces and markets Irish goods, whether they are from the North or from the South. We should be asking the IrishGovernment to do more to ensure that that happens. It can be achieved within the North/South Ministerial Council in the form of a common agricultural policy.
Many farmers in border areas have paid a very heavy price because of currency differences. We need to ensure that this does not happen. Currency differential affects not just the border areas and farmers but also imports and exports. The fact that Britain is not part of the European single currency has had a detrimental affect on farmers.
All aspects of farming are now affected. In the beginning the problem may have been BSE and the beef crisis, but it is now expanding across the farm spectrum. Beef farmers, milk producers, pig producers, sheep farmers, potato growers and now mushroom growers are all affected. The fact that mushrooms are being imported from Europe and beyond is flooding the market, causing the price to drop. Cheap poultry imports will mean that another part of the industry will begin to fail. A situation similar to that which is happening in relation to the meat plant in Dungannon will occur. Imports will come in, and nothing will be produced here.
We have the basis for resolving this matter. We are paying the price for European membership. We have been part of the European Community but with our hands tied behind our backs. Because we are linked to an industrial nation we have not been able to exploit membership in the way other countries have. We need to make a link with a nation that is agricultural so that we can start to make agriculture work as they have done in the Twenty-six Counties.
We also need to remind ourselves that not all the money in the Twenty-six Counties went to the farmers. A lot of it went to meat plants and various associated bodies, and some of it went astray. Meat plants should put back into agriculture some of the money they have benefited from.
If we are serious about reversing the situation we must do something about it. We need to pull together a common agricultural policy for the island of Ireland, not just for Europe.

Mr Derek Hussey: rose.

Mr John Tierney: On a point order, MrSpeaker. Could the time allocated to the motion be extended? A number of Members wish to speak, and if the time were extended by halfanhour most of them would be able to do so.

Mr Speaker: I regret that it is not possible to do that. First, half an hour would not cover it. The Business Committee made the decision about the amount of time which was available, and it was clear. However, the Member is correct, and I was going to say this in any case before the Minister spoke. A substantial number of other Members have indicated their desire to speak and undoubtedly have made preparations to do so, but I regret that it will not be possible.
Members must understand that we have further business today which is also time-limited and which is urgent. It is important that those in the Assembly — as well as people outside — know that many other Members wished to speak in this debate but were unable to do so because of time constraints.

Mr Derek Hussey: This crisis— and it is well defined as such — has been thoroughly debated in this Chamber. The fact that £600million has been lost to the economy over the last fiveyears speaks for itself.
MrRoche highlighted the importance of the wider industry — the agri-food industry — to NorthernIreland. It accounts for 10% of all civil employment and 8% of gross domestic product, and it is threetimes more important in NorthernIreland than in the UnitedKingdom overall. Therein lies some indication of where our central Government are coming from.
In 1997 a farm income averaged at a mere £3,093. I dread to think what the situation is now. At that time 38% of farms were showing a loss. What is the percentage today?
DrPaisley highlighted the amount of money that farmers owe to banks, feed suppliers and hire-purchase companies. If these companies had any sense of generosity or gave any thought to where their past profits came from, they would offer assistance.
This crisis affects all sectors of the industry: pigs, sheep, poultry, milk, beef — the list goes on. Farmers have been left to defend an industry that is worth millions to the economy. What have Departments done in the past? They have followed UnitedKingdom policy. If the Assembly is to mean anything the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development must adopt a NorthernIreland policy — one that truly reflects our needs. It is only a matter of time before there is a chain reaction to this crisis, and it will expand beyond the rural community to affect the high streets of villages, towns and cities throughout NorthernIreland. This crisis will impinge on us all.
Despite all of this it is obvious to me that there remains a deliberate Labour Government policy of non-involvement in the agriculture industry. The crisis continues to deepen, and the Government must take exceptional measures. Central government must identify genuine and meaningful solutions — not the response given by the Prime Minister that has been well castigated by other Members.
It is time to introduce a differential low-risk BSE status for NorthernIreland. It is well-documented that the Republic and GreatBritain have both had a much higher incidence of BSE than NorthernIreland. This was reported in ‘TheIrishTimes’ today.
The traceability scheme which is in place in NorthernIreland means that our produce is the best authenticated in the world — a fact that has not been properly recognised or promoted.
The Government have made some mistakes in the past at great cost to the industry. Think of their decision to discontinue the calf processing aid scheme. That was wrong. WilliamMcCrea quite rightly highlighted the non-use of finances and the agri-monetary compensation which could be introduced. MrMcGrady mentioned the agricultural retirement scheme, and there are many other possibilities.
There are also wider issues: the millennium trade round, which takes over from the Uruguay trade round; the European model of agriculture, which will be under attack at World Trade Organisation discussions; disparity in the implementation of animal welfare legislation; the strength of sterling; the inexplicable differences between prices on the farms and those at shop counters; the lack of proper labelling — the list goes on.
Give our farmers a level playing field, and they will be able to compete with anyone.

Mr Speaker: Order. The time is up.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I wish to thank all Members for their contributions and to apologise in advance for the fact that I shall be unable to respond to every point today. Outstanding issues will be dealt with in writing.
I understand the anger of Members and the farming communities, and I understand why they are having a peaceful protest today. They have the right to engage in peaceful protest, and I welcome their action.
I have arranged to meet a delegation of farmers and their wives after this debate. I note that Members spoke of the men in the farming community, but I am very well aware that many women also work there in support of their husbands and on the farms as well. This is a people industry.
I have great sympathy with the farming community. Since taking over as Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development I have become very aware of the huge decline in their incomes in recent years. This is why I have been working so hard in the Assembly and in London and Brussels to achieve something on their behalf.
The income figures released yesterday were a result of circumstances beyond my control, beyond the control of the Executive and, I stress, beyond the control of my Department, which has been unfairly criticised today for not doing enough and not caring. That is not true. I am impressed by the caring attitude that the officials in my Department display towards the farming community for whom they are working, as I am, in very difficult circumstances and with all of the constraints of the European regulations and the financial implications that surround us.
The strength of sterling, world markets and other factors have been referred to by many people. I am conscious of the burden that I carry in representing the farmers, and I intend to do everything in my power to help them — and I stress "in my power".
DrMcCrea said that I should let someone else take over if I am not able to do the job. We all enjoyed his rhetoric. He is good at that. We also note, however, that although there was an opportunity for someone else to take over responsibility for this industry, Rev DrMcCrea’s party decided not to take on that very difficult challenge.
But I am not afraid of challenges, and I will do my best in the circumstances in which I find myself. However, I do not like to be preached at by people who tell me that I could do better and should do better but who were not prepared to do the job themselves.
I am not going to have time to deal with every issue, but the Executive and I are doing everything that we can. The fact that we recently put £6·7million of the reallocated money towards making up for the budgetary shortfalls of my Department is an indication of our commitment to helping the farming community. In spite of some ill-informed commentary, both at that time and since, the vast majority of that money has gone to the farmers.
I was in Brussels last week lobbying Commissioner Fischler on behalf of NorthernIreland pig farmers. I have also had meetings with NickBrown. I am told that, in his speech today in London, the PrimeMinister said
"In areas such as the pig industry, which is the most parlous at the moment, I do not rule out further measures to help. It must, however, be linked to a strategy which provides a long-term framework."
I welcome that statement. I am, however, both anxious and interested to know what he has in mind. I hope to have a meeting with NickBrown very shortly, and I shall certainly be anxious to hear about this and discuss it.
Members have referred to the agri-monetary compensation available to the UK which has not been paid, and I know that the Ulster Farmers’ Union has briefed some Members on this. The matter has been raised by MrSavage, DrPaisley, DrMcCrea, MrHussey and others. I agree in principle that moneys available to farmers should be paid to them. It is wrong that our farmers should suffer because of fiscal policies developed for other reasons. These policies should not put UK farmers at a disadvantage in comparison with those in other member states.
NorthernIreland farmers, as other Members have pointed out, are doubly disadvantaged, as they share a land border with the Republic. I have demanded an urgent meeting with NickBrown to discuss agri-monetary payments. I do, however, recognise that he is constrained. I do not underestimate the resistance from the Treasury, but I would like some other Members of the House to assist me as I do my best to make the case for NorthernIreland pig farmers.
I shall briefly refer to some of the points made before I go on. I am very aware that I shall not have time to do everything. DrPaisley raised the question of help for new entrants. There is provision in the rural development plan for new entrants. It is one of the optional schemes, and we shall look at it. I shall deal with all of these matters in consultation with both the Agriculture Committee and the industry itself, which I have consulted many times already during the past twomonths.
Dr Paisley has made comparisons with the Republic of Ireland on European money. These are false comparisons, since the Republic is not under the same financial constraints that we are, and whether we like it or not, we must operate under UKfinancial arrangements.
I have every reason to suspect that DrPaisley and, indeed, MrPoots, who raised the same issue, are not suggesting a more radical solution to our problems.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Stop bringing politics into it.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am merely making a point, and I think that it is a fair point.
I have been to Brussels, and I have left Commissioner Fischler in no doubt about the problems in our pig sector. I have further meetings planned with Commissioner Byrne and him, and I am meeting the chiefexecutive of Malton’s later this week. I shall also be meeting retailers.
Although MrMcCartney is no longer here, I shall respond to his point. I am aware of the problem of local sourcing. MrSavage made the same point, which is of great importance. As I have said, I shall be meeting retailers and impressing upon them the need to source locally and to recognise that our pork is produced under conditions conducive to animal welfare. Indeed, I have written to all public-sector purchasing bodies in NorthernIreland making the same points. Together with JoeWalsh in the Republic, I have set up an investigation into pig-processing capacity on the island of Ireland.
I also welcome and support what MrMcCartney said about local people supporting local produce. The £400,000 which has been made available for pig-meat marketing will be a help in proceeding along those lines. We also have £2·5million for the red-meat marketing strategy. It is extremely important that my Department has made this provision. Many of the problems in the market at the moment have been caused by the BSE crisis and the resistance to red meat.
We need to explain to the people, not just in NorthernIreland but also further afield, that NorthernIreland beef is the safest on these islands. I am determined to pursue low incidence BSE status for NorthernIreland. I have made that one of my priorities. MrSavage, MrBradley, MrRoche, MrArmstrong and MrPoots, and perhaps others, have referred to this. I spoke to NickBrown about it again last week, and I have his, and JoeWalsh’s, support. We are making progress, but I am not unaware of the potential difficulties. I know that the idea does not command 100% support, even within NorthernIreland, and there could be major hurdles in London and Brussels. I am determined to do all that I can for the beef farmers of NorthernIreland.
I realise that I am about to run out of time. MrMcGrady referred to the early retirement scheme. That scheme would be extremely costly. If we could afford it, it would be welcome to the farmers. One of the things that have been impressed upon me by the industry is that, whatever money that is available, there should be maximum winners and minimum losers. The early retirement scheme would mean minimum winners and maximum losers.
I will reply in writing to the other points.

Mr Speaker: I emphasise again that many Members wished to speak. The Minister could have done with more time to give answers. That is an expression of the concern of the Assembly.
I now call MrKane to wind up the debate.

Mr Gardiner Kane: First, I would challenge the Minister about the millions of pounds of additional money. This money went to the Department to pay off bad debt. She has failed to respond to all the prescriptive measures.
The demonstrations converging on the grounds of this building today are the result of neglecting the primary producers of that upon which life depends — food. Let nobody in the House think that farmers are crying wolf or that the agriculture crisis is something affecting only farmers and their families. An 80% reduction in farm incomes must translate into a colossal reduction in purchases from the multitude of suppliers who surround agriculture. The devastation will be widespread if it remains unchecked.
An array of factors are cited as having contributed to the collapse of the value of agri-produce. The strength of sterling, a world surplus, and a worldwide ban resulting from the discovery of BSE in our cattle have all been mentioned. The strength of sterling in comparison with the strength of other currencies is obvious. A world surplus of agricultural produce is a likely factor, since other non-members of the EU are also experiencing problems in agriculture. The weakest of reasons for explaining what is happening to this industry, arguably NorthernIreland’s staple industry, is the export ban. Scientists have concluded that, our beef is safe to eat. We already knew that. Subsequently the ban was lifted. However, despite the scientific evidence and the European Commission’s removal of the trade embargo, the French Government have imposed their own embargo, thus contravening European law.
With the price of its agricultural produce, NorthernIreland is fast becoming the poor man of Europe, and we do not need any further disadvantages imposed. The farming industry requires immediate financial aid, for its survival. Circumstances make our farmers the poorest in Europe as well as the least well-off in the UnitedKingdom. In the week ending 22January2000 the average steer price in NorthernIreland was 158·6p per kilo, while in Great Britain the average price was 176·7p per kilo.
That is a difference of £63·35 on a 350-kilo carcass, representing a considerable margin between the two producers. It is a similar situation with lamb. In the same period the Great Britain price per kilo was 185·5p, as opposed to 176·07p in NorthernIreland, and that means a disadvantage to the Province of over £2 on a 21-kilo carcass. These examples highlight the disparity between the regions.
Producers here have also had a reduction of almost one third in the price of milk. This, combined with the removal of the calf processing scheme, produces an animal welfare problem as well as a financial one.
Despite pleas to the Government and the new Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the pig industry is disappearing even as we speak. The industry does not perceive the reduction contained in the Agenda2000 CAP reforms as a means of increasing prices. Rather, it is seen as a method of curbing production in an already distressed market. A 4% cut in suckler cow quotas, or a 2·5% cut in premium levels through modulation, can do nothing but further damage an industry already on its knees.
Yet, with the resolve of the UKGovernment and the NorthernIreland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to push for low incidence BSE status for NorthernIreland, we could regain our exports of beef to the continent.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Farming can continue no longer —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat. The time is up.

Mr Gardiner Kane: I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
This House contends that the cuts in farm incomes, the market pressure on each sector of agriculture and the lawlessness of the French Government constitute a serious crisis in the NorthernIreland agriculture industry and calls on the NorthernIreland Executive to recognise this and take emergency measures to save the industry.
The sitting was suspended at 12.32pm.
On resuming —

Decommissioning: Report of Commission

Mr Speaker: A substantial number of Members wish to speak in this debate. I have discussed the matter with the Business Committee, and the view was expressed that the same arrangements as those earlier today should apply. The Member moving the motion will have 10minutes, with fiveminutes for winding up. Each Member wishing to speak will have fiveminutes. I trust that that is in accordance with the Assembly’s views.
The following motion stood on the OrderPaper in the name of MrTrimble:
To take note of reports from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Not moved.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is this not a matter for the leave of the House?

Mr Speaker: The FirstMinister has said "Not moved." Had the motion been moved and had there been a speech, it would have required the leave of the House to withdraw it. The statement "Not moved" means that the motion falls and cannot be debated.
In the circumstances I do not feel that I can move to the Adjournment debate, because the Member who is to open that debate and the Minister who will respond have not been forewarned. I propose to suspend the sitting for 30minutes to ascertain whether at least the Member and the Minister can be available earlier. Standing Orders were not suspended to a particular time, and I think that it would be possible to have the Adjournment debate earlier.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. Many Members will know that the Adjournment debate is from 5.00pm until 6.00pm. It would hardly be fair to them to start the debate early simply because the FirstMinister could not get his act together and give Members proper notice. He has run away again. My party could not even table an amendment, otherwise we could have done something about this. This is another example of contempt of the House — bringing Members together and then suddenly saying "Not moved."
The Adjournment debate should begin at 5.00pm. Keep Executive members here till 5.00pm so that everyone wishing to take part in the debate can do so. Why should Members be penalised for the way in which the First Minister has acted?

Mr Speaker: The proposition was for a 30-minute suspension so that I could ascertain whether the Member who is to speak on the Adjournment and the Minister who will reply could be available earlier. I may return in 30minutes to say that the matter cannot be addressed until 5.00pm. However, in the interests of the House I should at least try to ascertain if the matter can be satisfactorily dealt with before that time.

Mr Nigel Dodds: This is a deplorable situation, given that there was a debate this morning on agriculture — the most serious crisis affecting —

Mr Speaker: Order. Is this a point of order?

Mr Nigel Dodds: Yes, and, of course, it will be for you to rule on it.
This morning’s debate was curtailed. Many Members wanted to speak but could not because there was further business. The First Minister has now withdrawn that business, having denied those Members that opportunity. That is deplorable. He is once again running away —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Nigel Dodds: — from the issue of decommissioning.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat.
He was right when he said that I would rule on whether it was a point of order. It was not a point of order.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, MrSpeaker.

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Cedric Wilson: I understand that it may be.

Mr Speaker: I admire the Member’s honesty, but his comment means that it is not a point of order.
The sitting was suspended at 1.37 pm.
On resuming —

Assembly Business

Mr Speaker: Order. I have consulted with the Minister and with the Member who is to speak on the Adjournment motion. The Minister was in a position to move ahead, but the Member was not. The sitting will be suspended until 5.00pm, and we will have the one-hour Adjournment debate then.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. Given the unsatisfactory nature of what has transpired and the First Minister’s decision to run away from the debate that was to be held on GendeChastelain’s reports on decommissioning, can you indicate to the House when you were informed by the FirstMinister of his decision to withdraw from this debate? This does have an effect on the number of Members who were denied an opportunity to speak during the agriculture debate this morning. The Ulster Unionist Party has withdrawn from the Chamber again. It is probably ensconced in an office somewhere so that it does not have to face the decommissioning issue that we wanted to raise.

Mr Speaker: I cannot tell the Member how many Members were not able to speak this morning. Having indicated to parties the amount of time that was available, some did not even put the names of Members who wished to speak forward, because they knew that there was no point. For that reason I cannot answer that question.
It is not in order for me to respond to the other part of the Member’s question save to say that I am as open as I possibly can be with the Assembly. I cannot say more than that. If the Member wishes, he may discuss with his representative on the Business Committee the meeting that we had at lunchtime. It would not be proper for me to go further at this stage.

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. Many dozens of people have travelled from throughout NorthernIreland to be present for this debate. Now that MrTrimble is not here, many of them are — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. This does not appear to me to be a point of order, and therefore I cannot take it.
It may well be that Members have travelled some distance to attend the debate, but the Member’s Colleagues will tell him that from time to time they make the journey to Westminster to make a statement and are not given the opportunity to do so. Life is often hard.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Mr Speaker, we have been denied the opportunity to debate decommissioning — an issue which the entire community is concerned about. Perhaps you will give me some guidance on the correct procedure for initiating an emergency debate once the report is in the possession of the FirstMinister and Assembly Members. Maybe you will refresh my memory.

Mr Speaker: I refer the Member to Standing Orders. I do not think it is necessary for me to read out the relevant parts. I appreciate that the Member may well have wanted to put his request on the record.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I wish to raise a point of order.

Mr Speaker: I wish to be assured that this is a genuine point of order and not an attempt to make a speech.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: It is not such an attempt, and I appreciate your allowing me to make the point.
Can you confirm under which Standing Order the FirstMinister withdrew this motion, and, in relation to MrDodds’s point of order about MrTrimble’s decision to chicken out of this debate, can you indicate whether you are prepared to bring the matter before the Business Committee to find out if there is any way of preventing the like of this from happening again?

Mr Speaker: This is not a matter for Standing Orders, but rather for ErskineMay. It is entirely in order in ErskineMay. It is not uncommon in other places for business to collapse in this way. There is no point in bringing the matter before the Business Committee since it is in order. Had it not been in order, as the Member is aware, I would not have permitted it to happen. Of course, that may not be to the satisfaction of all Members.
The sitting was suspended at 2.12pm.
On resuming —
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [MrSpeaker]

Disruption in Schools

Mr Sammy Wilson: There has been widespread consternation in schools across the Province over the last twomonths since the appointment of the Minister of Education. Furthermore, his party has been actively engaged in the disruption of schools, disruption which the Minister has not condemned. He may like to run away from the fact that his appointment caused such anger, but the truth is that there have been unprecedented occurrences in schools since then.
We have witnessed whole schools being called together to debate this matter, schoolchildren voting not to have the Minister near their school, boards of governors meeting and resolving that he will not be invited to their schools and, indeed, on some occasions, protests. He may wish to forget all this, along with some other matters to which I shall come in a moment. The fact remains, however, that his appointment has been an embarrassment for the Department of Education and for the party — and I note that most of its Members are absent today — that was responsible for the setting up of an Executive which included SinnFéin.
The Minister said yesterday that he wanted a quiet life. He said that he wanted a Dobermann to sit at his feet. He thought that I was going to do that. He must have mistaken me for someone else — the "pup" from EastBelfast who is occasionally given to licking the Minister’s hand. Let me assure the Minster, however, that I do not intend to sit at his feet. In fact, I have made it quite clear that my role in the Assembly will be to snap at his ankles and, when I can, sink my teeth into his ministerial calf. We have set ourselves the task of opposing SinnFéin, not co-operating with it.
When the First Minister announced the draft programme of legislation yesterday he said that he would be introducing a DogsBill. This DogsBill was to give the courts or resident magistrates discretion in all circumstances, including the circumstances of an attack, in determining the fate of a dog. I do not know if the Minister of Education had any say in having that included in the legislation. Perhaps he was merely preparing himself for the future. Perhaps, as we all suspect, members of IRA/SinnFéin have their own methods of dealing with those who oppose them. They wish to hold on to their guns, because the tried and tested Republican methods of dealing with dissent are still close to their hearts.
I wish to look at the various ways in which schools have been disrupted. First, this disruption has been caused by anxiety at the Minister’s appointment. The Minister would love to believe that this was orchestrated, that it was politically motivated by parties with a point to make. Of course, he must believe this, for to accept otherwise would be to accept that there is widespread loathing of him because of his background and because of what he and his colleagues have done to the people of NorthernIreland. He chooses to believe that this disruption was not spontaneous but orchestrated.
My party has made it quite clear that we do not believe that youngsters should disadvantage themselves because of the appointment of a SinnFéin Minister. They are quite right to make clear their opposition, as are parents, boards of governors and teachers. However, children should not be disadvantaging themselves by damaging their education.
The Minister’s appointment has caused widespread disruption. Of course, since then his party colleagues have been causing disruption in schools without any condemnation from him. SinnFéin disrupted the school in Pomeroy because it dared to invite a duchess. The Minister has said that he will try to sort this out, but he has not condemned it because he is not against intimidation. One has only to look at the behaviour of MrMcElduff in Carrickmore to see that SinnFéin is not opposed to intimidation. What he was annoyed about was that the behaviour of the ignoramuses in Pomeroy held IRA/SinnFéin up to ridicule among their own.
The argument went something like this: as she is a duchess, she must be a member of the royal family and must therefore oppress Catholics. It is a bit like saying "Your name is Gerry, so you must be a German and a Fascist." I suppose the first and last parts are right, but not the middle part. That is what they were angry about.
Look at what happened in the Assembly yesterday. The Minister made it quite clear, in response to MrWeir, that he is not against intimidation or interference in schools. He admitted that he pulled his youngster out of a class because the RUC was present. That gives the green light to all the FinbarConways that lurk in the towns around NorthernIreland, under the guise of SinnFéin. It will not be too long before they will be taking the lead from the Minister and pulling their children out of school, or maybe other people’s children out, or maybe the teachers. The Minister has said that if the RUC is in a school, it is OK to go in and disrupt it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does the Member not agree that that is the act of a hallion?

Mr Sammy Wilson: That must be a country term. I do not know what a hallion is.
It is quite clear that the Minister has laid himself wide open and that his party has been encouraged to behave in this way. It is no wonder that his activities have been condemned by teachers’ unions, by principals and by parents. It is significant that he will not publish what schools he intends to go to. That could be a relic of his secretive past when he was used to, as he bragged on his first public engagement, flitting from safe house to safe house. Now he is going to flit from safe school to safe school in secrecy. He knows that, because of his record, he is not accepted in this Province or in many of its schools.
The Minister has promised future disruption of the school system in NorthernIreland. He has promised to dismantle what is best about our education system. Yesterday he attacked the school system — a school system which, incidentally, people in other parts of the UnitedKingdom envy.
Ironically, the same Minister has praised our school system this very day in his statement about improved school performances. He said that 56% of pupils achieved five or more AtoCgrades at GCSE, compared to pupils in England, only 48% of whom reached that standard in 1999. I will not be able to go into this as my time is nearly finished, but he intends to disrupt a system, which is the envy of other parts of the UnitedKingdom, in his pursuit of socialist ideology. He and his colleagues have been good at levelling for the last 30 years. They have levelled towns and villages all over this Province. Now he wants to level down our education system, with all the disruption that that would cause.
The Minister of Education does not have the confidence of those whom he claims to administer. He does not have that confidence because of his behaviour and that of his colleagues, and he does not have that confidence because of what he is threatening to do to the system.
Twomonths ago the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party told us that in setting up an Executive which includes SinnFéin he had got the best deal for NorthernIreland. Within two months we were to be rid of guns when we had SinnFéin Ministers in Government. They would be poachers turned gamekeepers — all would be well. He has given the poachers the run of the estate. He himself has run away today from the debate on disarmament that he had promised the House. He did not deliver a good deal for the people of NorthernIreland. He delivered a rotten deal, and with it we have got a rotten Minister, who ought to go.

Mr Speaker: At the commencement of the debate I had almost no names of Members wishing to speak, save for MrWilson and, of course, the Minister, who will respond to this debate. Since then I have received a number of names. There has been no time limit, for I was unable to set one, not knowing the situation. I propose to the Assembly, so that those whose names are down can have an opportunity to speak, that we limit each Member to fiveminutes. I seek the leave of the Assembly on that.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. How long will the Minister have to reply?

Mr Speaker: The Minister will have about 10minutes. It is normal practice to give the Minister 10minutes for each hour. As you will recall, the last Adjournment debate lasted threehours, and the Minister had about halfanhour to respond on that occasion. Do I have the leave of the Assembly to restrict Members to fiveminutes?

Mr Danny Kennedy: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you exercise a little discretion in time allocations so that Members need not confine themselves exactly to fiveminutes? If they were halfway through an important sentence would you cut them off?

Mr Speaker: The difficulty is that I am very much aware that in such circumstances Members, seeing the time limit coming up, have the capacity to produce the longest sentences. They speak in paragraphs then. If Members know they have fiveminutes, they can watch the clock. If there is no limit, there will be arguments saying that one Member got more time than another, and so on. I ask the leave of the Assembly to restrict speeches to fiveminutes so that those Members whose names are down will have an opportunity to speak.

Rev William McCrea: Further to that point of order, MrSpeaker. Will my honFriend get any winding-up time?

Mr Speaker: I am tempted to suggest that there was a fair bit of winding up in the first speech. There is no winding-up time in an Adjournment debate. I will therefore restrict all Members to fiveminutes. I advise them to watch the stopwatches and to match the length of their last sentence to the time they have left.
Leave granted.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity provided by MrWilson, the Member for EastBelfast, to speak in this important debate. The appointment of the current Minister of Education generated a very negative response in the entire community, and particularly in the Unionist community. This reaction was inevitable given the public persona and background of the individual concerned. Many people, including parents, governors, teachers, educationalists and pupils, expressed concern about the implications of the appointment.
Those concerns were manifest in the number of school protests, petitions and letters of protest by school children throughout the Province. Many representations were made to me as Chairman of the Education Committee, and I attempted to assist in what was an extremely difficult situation. I, along with MrWilson, the Member for EastBelfast, met with groups of pupils, teachers and parents. I publicly appealed for restraint to be exercised by everyone, including the new Minister.
Many of the Minister’s actions and public statements were unhelpful — in particular, his reference to his having been on the run in CountyLeitrim. I am very satisfied, however, that most of the protests were spontaneous events organised by pupils and not orchestrated by any political party, as alleged at the time. I pay tribute to the important restraining influence exercised by teachers and parents in that emotive period. Their great common sense ensured that the issue did not adversely affect the long-term educational prospects of the children, who, understandably, felt very strongly on this issue.
My party has always believed that sectarian politics should be kept out of schools at all costs, and I believe that this view is strongly supported by parents everywhere. It was a matter of great regret that in January the disruption in schools took a very different turn with the events in Pomeroy. This episode proved to be remarkable in many respects. It was not so much an Aesop’s fable as a Grimm tale. It was deadly serious, and it could almost be told in the language of a fairy story — so let us have a go.
Once upon a time, not so very long ago and in a place not so very far away, there lived a man called MrFinbar. MrFinbar had red hair, and he appeared to eat well. He rested a lot in a comfortable armchair where he thought thoughts and heard voices. One day MrFinbar heard voices tell him that a royal princess from a neighbouring land was coming to see some local children. MrFinbar hated the royals from this land, but he had no objection to carrying around some of their pictures in his wallet. MrFinbar objected to the visit of the royal princess and said that she was not wanted by local children. However, it turned out that the royal princess was not really a princess — she just knew some members of the royal family.

Mr Speaker: I draw the Member’s attention to the fact that the debate is about disruption in schools, not entertainment in schools.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Thank you very much.
However, she was a very nice person who had a famous ancestor who was good at writing. She wanted to tell all the boys and girls about him. In fact, a local man called Seamus, who was good at verse, liked her and helped her. But MrFinbar would not budge. He stopped the visit, and all the local children were sad.

Several Members: Ah.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Sadder than that. [Laughter]
MrFinbar did not care, for he had an important friend called Martin, whom he sometimes saw. He knew that Martin would support him. But Martin had been very busy lately, for he had a new job and lots of new friends. He was very busy. But even though lots of people complained about MrFinbar, Martin would not criticise his dear friend. So the very nice lady went off to other schools to tell the children about her story. And MrFinbar and his friends lived not happily ever after but in an atmosphere of sectarian hatred, malice and spite.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I believed that we were here to debate a real problem in education, in a real way. I did not know that it was to be a highjacking of the Minister of Education or a party political table tennis match. There is a real problem, and educationalists who understand the situation in schools recognise it. However, since other Members have decided to go down a political-point-scoring route and ignore the serious nature of this problem, I would like to take the few minutes allocated to me to focus on that problem and on the plight of teachers, parents and children involved in it. I refer to the growing problem of disruption in schools.
This problem is not centred in NorthernIreland; it has European dimensions and is related to the changing nature of our society. We are moving from an old authoritarian, almost militaristic, way of dealing with education to a more democratic way and to a more democratic society. We are moving from a system that had strict diktats, order and discipline in the classroom to one which is more open and co-operative. In the old system, corporal punishment was used to attain and maintain control. As our society has changed, we have had to look at methods other than the use of force to get the attention of children. We are now trying to work with people and give them the support that they need. The teacher in the classroom is hard-pressed to cope with this changing situation.
There was an old academic argument about the origin of the word "education". It was accepted that it came from Latin. But there are two Latin words: "educere", which means "to drive", and "educare", which means "to lead". The new way of looking at education during the last few decades has been to try to lead the children to education. Society, however, still expects a disciplinarian approach — the old system — and that has led to conflict in the classroom.
I appeal to the Minister and his Department to examine this problem and not be diverted by the sort of political foreplay we have witnessed today. They should look at the matter seriously and try to find the resources that are required, for resources are needed. If action is not taken to deal quickly, and in a proper, supportive way, with a disruptive child in the classroom, the problem can grow. I do not particularly subscribe to the old adage that one rotten apple turns the rest of the barrel bad, but it certainly has an effect. One can see this when one is trying to maintain control for the benefit of the other 99% of the children, whose quality of education suffers because of the disruptive pupil. There is a great need to put those resources into place to help teachers. This is real disruption in education.
Our present system includes social workers and a whole stratum of other people to help. The children who need specialist help continue to fall between two stools. They fail to get the attention they deserve and the support they need simply because the necessary resources and expertise are not available. I appeal to the Minister and to the Department to ensure that they are made available.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Member for SouthDown said that this is a very important issue. It is a very important issue for all who have a particular interest in the education of our children. It is also an important issue for many of us who believe that the protests that were held over the last few weeks were held for a purpose — and that purpose was not just to grab the headlines. There were spontaneous protests by secondary school children, who took it upon themselves to show where they stand on these matters. We need to understand why they did that.
We all know that the SinnFéin spokesman, on his first school visit, used the words "fun on the run". This was highly publicised in the media. Of course, it was all right for him to grab the headlines on his first school visit but to grab them by telling children about the time when he was hiding from the security forces, glorifying terrorism itself. Is that what a Minister should be doing? After that can anyone really say that it is wrong for schoolchildren, many of whom were supported by their parents, to protest? I say "No." I am concerned that the Minister masquerades as a respectable person and a respectable Minister, when the reality is that he is anything but that.
Some criticism has been levelled by members of the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP and the AllianceParty about the protests that have taken place. Certain Ulster Unionists are symptomatic of a party that has made political ideals out of capitulation. They have said "We will go along with the process even though we know it is wrong." I exclude the Member who spoke today on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, for he has obviously taken a stand on this issue. The party’s decision-making body has become so used to surrendering principles that when individuals dare to stand up for justice they are heckled and in some cases ridiculed.
Pomeroy is an example of the so-called acceptable face of SinnFéin. The Minister finds himself in a position where his own party members are trying to make capital out of a visit to a school by a friend of the royal family.

Mr Peter Weir: Does the honMember agree that, given CllrConway’s in-depth knowledge of the royal family, it is just as well that the school was never given a concert by DukeEllington or CountBasie?

Mr Jim Shannon: I thank the Member for his comments.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Will the Member give way?

Mr Jim Shannon: I will not give way. The Member will get a chance to speak in a moment.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. Is it appropriate for MrShannon to attempt to misrepresent the situation? It is well known that he was an orchestrator of all the protests around some of the schools. Surely that is not —

Mr Speaker: Order. That was not a point of order.

Mr Jim Shannon: That is not true. All the protests held in our area were organised by the schoolchildren themselves. If the Member had any knowledge of Strangford he would realise that, but he has no idea what goes on there.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Member has no knowledge of Strangford, and his contacts in the area are obviously giving him wrong information. All the children from all the secondary schools in the area protested. Why? Because the Minister is not acceptable to them. They were concerned, and most of them were supported by their parents. That is the good thing. They were not on their own in this.
Those children who did go out showed a political awareness of what was happening far beyond that displayed by some of their parents and elders. They are not merely teenagers who decided to take a couple of hours off school. After the protests had taken place, they went back to classes. We want to see them excelling — that is important — but the Minister who is responsible for education is not acceptable to them. This group of mature young people deserve to be congratulated; they give us hope for generations to come.
Schoolchildren should be given the opportunity to put forward their points of view, and it is disgraceful that the Minister was appointed against their will.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Francie Molloy: This is a disappointing debate. As MrONeill said, it was unfortunate that MrWilson did not use his time to talk about the real disruption in classrooms and about how principals and teachers can maintain authority in schools to benefit and educate our children. One of the failures of the whole system has been — [Interruption]
MrSpeaker, does someone else want to speak? No? I thought that perhaps I had given way.
If a teacher like SammyWilson were really concerned about children’s welfare, we would be having a debate on the very relevant points raised by MrONeill. Today’s debate is about the protests, and, of course, the DUP was the driving force behind them. If the television cameras were at a protest, so was a DUP councillor, and some DUP councillors have children at the schools. They were at every protest, raising issues on behalf of the children. I have no problem with people having protests as part of the process.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is it right for a Member to misrepresent the situation so blatantly? I ask him to name one councillor who took part in the protests in my constituency of Ballymena.

Mr Speaker: It is a known fact that Members express their views in the Chamber whether they are leading, misleading or otherwise. That was not a point of order.

Mr Francie Molloy: If the Member looks back at the film footage taken at the time he will see that several DUP councillors were involved in protests in various locations. I will leave the Member to do the research; he is good at doing research at other times.
Mr Wilson has failed to bring this debate around to what we are supposed to be talking about — disruption in schools. Although he is a teacher, he has failed to give his views on how we should be dealing with the disruption. It is difficult to educate pupils when there are no jobs for them to look forward to.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are supposed to be debating disruption in schools, not demonstrating disruption in the Assembly.

Mr Francie Molloy: That is a very good point. The DUP has not set a very good example either in the Assembly or around the Building, where its visiting thugs were intimidating people, including Members.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is it in order for a Member to say that any Member who signs a visitor in is signing in a thug? This debate is getting out of hand. A Member who signs a visitor in is responsible for that person. The Member is talking about thugs. He should name them. I will tell him one thing: they were not armed, unlike some of the people he brings in.

Mr Speaker: It is not in order for the Member on his feet to make claims about others and not name them, or for the Member intervening to make claims about other Members’ guests and not name them. We should all concentrate on the debate.

Mr Francie Molloy: The approaches that were being made in the Building today were unparliamentary. Attempts were being made by visitors to intimidate people, including Members.

Rev William McCrea: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. Have you had any reports of intimidation or of threats being made in the Building? If so, what action have you taken?

Mr Speaker: I have received a number of reports. I have asked the Keeper of the House for a full report, and he is currently preparing it.

Rev William McCrea: Will that report be brought before the House?

Mr Speaker: It will not. Such reports are never brought before the House. They are brought to me, and I try to deal with them appropriately myself or in consultation with, for instance, the Commission.

Mr Francie Molloy: The debate should be dealing with the points that MrONeill made. Some young people are not attending school; others do attend but disrupt classes, thus depriving others of the chance of a good education. If we were able to come up with a system to deal with that, if we were able to give pupils the chance of a career and a job to look forward to, that would be a great help to them.
I would like to congratulate StPatrick’s Girls’ Academy in Dungannon, which, for the second year running, has come top of the schools league tables. This is an example of a good school with good pupils, good teachers and a good educational system which has provided its pupils with good prospects. I would like to put on the record the Assembly’s congratulations to the school.
I hope that what I am saying will, if nothing else, send a signal to DUP Members that they cannot engage in street protests or disruption and then deny others the right to protest.
MrConway has come in for much criticism today. I am not here to defend him, but he is not here to defend himself either. All he did was request that the principal withdraw an invitation — [Interruption] Neither he nor the parents disrupted the education of the pupils in any way.
On the subject of disruption, surely the DUP should be setting a good example by not causing disruption when people are speaking.

Mr Norman Boyd: Some of the jocular comments made today take away from what is a serious issue. The people of NorthernIreland are totally outraged at the appointment of a SinnFéin/IRA Minister of Education. A large part of the blame must lie with the Ulster Unionist Party and the other pro-agreement parties who allowed them to get into the Executive and have never signed a motion to exclude them.
I have to warn the SinnFéin/IRA Minister of Education that, despite his assertion that he aims to visit all schools, he is not welcome in all schools, particularly those in Unionist areas. He is certainly not wanted in my constituency. His visits will be opposed by parents and the general public alike. Many principals, boards of governors, parents and pupils to whom I have spoken are absolutely outraged at his appointment. In my constituency, some people whose children go to MethodistCollege have withdrawn their voluntary contributions in protest at the school’s invitation to the Minister. Pupils were put in the nauseating position of having to stomach MartinMcGuinness in their classrooms. The SinnFéin/IRA Minister sat beside pupils, and they were almost physically sick. Fortunately, MethodistCollege does not reflect the thinking of other schools, as can be seen by the spontaneous protests of their pupils, and its head must be condemned for his actions.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I agree with my Colleague’s comments about the activities of MrMcGuinness and his colleagues over the last 30years, given the disruption they have brought to schools throughout the Province. I know children, including my own, who have had to dodge bombs and broken glass from the fronts of buildings in the centre of Belfast year after year. It caused disruption in schools, and parents had difficulty leaving their children off to school, wondering if they would be safe at the end of the day. These are things that the people of NorthernIreland will not easily forget.
With regard to the use of children in protests against the Minister’s appointment, I must say that these protests have come from people who may have more sense than their peers. The young people of this Province are not totally isolated from the reality of what has happened.
I notice that we have with us today the cheerleader of the NorthernIreland Office, MrQuintinOliver, who used schoolchildren to get the agreement accepted. I hope that he is ashamed when he sees what that agreement has done to the Province and its people.

Mr Speaker: In fairness to MrWilson’s party colleague who had the Floor I must say that this was more than an intervention. It was a speech, and unfortunately it has used up a good deal of his Colleague’s time.

Mr Norman Boyd: I concur with everything that my party leader has said. Anything that Unionists do by way of peaceful protest is considered to be abusing and exploiting children, yet for 18months we have had children, who are not even old enough to read the placards, standing outside CastleBuildings.
On any day, over 400,000pupils in the UnitedKingdom — 5% of the school population — are absent, 50,000 of them playing truant. In many cases the parents are aware that their child is not attending school, and many think that his education does not matter. Government figures suggest that 80% of parents fail to turn up when asked to appear in court after their child has been absent for a considerable time.
However, the SinnFéin/IRA Education Minister is hardly a suitable role model for reducing truancy, having spent part of his school days on the run. In fact, in today’s ‘NewsLetter’ it is reported that he kept his own son off school. Why? Because the RUC was giving a talk on road safety. We have had 30years of disruption, bombs and bomb scares throughout our towns and cities. We have had schools wrecked by explosions, yet SinnFéin/IRA Members have the cheek to talk in the House about disruption in schools.
On an academic level it is more likely that truants will leave school without qualifications. Only 8% of persistent truants obtain fiveGCSEs or more, compared to 54% of those who have never played truant. What sort of example does the SinnFéin/IRA Minister give to the young people of NorthernIreland? In an Audit Commission report entitled ‘Misspent Youth’ it was suggested that 23% of people sentenced in court had engaged in truancy at a significant level. The police have indicated that almost 40% of street robberies and 20% of criminal damage is caused by 10- to 16-year-olds.
How can a Member who is inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation hold this position? The people of NorthernIreland will not tolerate it. He must go.

Mr Jim Wells: I would like to respond to the scurrilous remarks of Members opposite about the nature of the schools protest. I want to nail the lie that this was organised, manipulated or even encouraged by members of my party or any other Unionist party. As one who visited the first protest, when 400 children from Kilkeel spontaneously left their classes in protest against the appointment of a SinnFéin/IRA Minister, I emphasise the facts.
I was in a meeting at Translink with the Minister for Regional Development when I got a telephone call telling me that the children had been out for twohours and wanted me, as their local Assembly Member, to come down, collect a petition and address them. I told them that having made their protest, they should go back to their classes and that when the school bell rang I would meet them to collect their petition and speak to them. That is exactly what I did, because I was concerned that some of them were outside the school grounds. The SinnFéin/IRA Minister knows that. I took their petition, which I know has the support not just of the children but of their parents as well.
A few weeks earlier in Kilkeel we had unveiled a memorial to 11members of the security forces murdered by SinnFéin/IRA. The nieces, nephews and grandchildren of those people were in that school. As citizens of this Province, they have a right to protest against this individual’s being the Minister of Education.
We must remember that this individual’s organisation murdered bus drivers in front of school children, murdered a headmaster in front of 40seven-year-olds, murdered people who were delivering to and building schools and murdered ancillary workers in schools. The individual no doubt knows the names and addresses of those who carried out these deeds. Has he given them to the security forces? He has not. There is a great deal of anger throughout the Province. The Minister is not welcome in any state school in SouthDown. The only way he can come to these schools is if he forces himself upon them, as he did with MethodistCollege —

Mr Francie Molloy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Jim Wells: I certainly will not give way to terrorists.
If he tries to force himself on the people of SouthDown he will realise that he is not welcome. He can go to all the StLouise’ses and StPatrick’ses of this world, but he is not welcome in the controlled sector.

Mr Peter Weir: Does the Member agree that having SinnFéin in charge of the Education and Health Departments is like having KingHerod and DrCrippen running them — except that DrCrippen would have put in a more competent performance at health QuestionTime yesterday?

Mr Jim Wells: His Colleague MsdeBrún — MsBrown — rivalled his incompetence in her dealing with Assembly questions.
Immediately after the Kilkeel protest we were told by the FirstMinister, MrTrimble, not to worry. Our strong Scrutiny Committee would be able to bring this man to heel and control what he did. We learned yesterday that under this agreement the Minister can do what he likes. There is nothing the Committee or the Assembly can do to stop him. The Assembly has handed total and absolute control of our children’s affairs into the hands of this man — a man who boasted during his first visit to a school in Londonderry that when he was on the run in CountyLeitrim he met a certain lady who was the cousin of the headmaster. What a thing to be proud of. We would like to know what he was on the run from.

Mr Derek Hussey: I would like the Minister to comment on the massive damage caused by a bomb attack on buses parked in school grounds in Castlederg, on the disruption caused when pupils attended the funerals of fivepast pupils of the same school and on the deaths of 22others who had relatives in the school. Bus drivers have been attacked on fouroccasions, and staff on three. One of these attacks resulted in the early retirement of the headmaster.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat. He has taken up MrWells’s time.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. When MrCedricWilson was addressing the House the clock was stopped, and MrBoyd got his full time.

Mr Speaker: The Member is incorrect. I kept my eye on the clock. I noticed how much time was passing, which is why I intervened. The Member’s eye was not on the clock — he was making reference to someone in the Gallery. This is becoming a habit. It is not appropriate to refer to people in the Gallery or to civil servants in the Boxes.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, aChathaoirligh.
I congratulate the Minister, MartinMcGuinness, for the efficient and professional way he has carried out a very difficult job to date. I also congratulate him for taking the time to attend the debate and the manner in which he has responded to what was obviously a shoddy attempt by the DUP to have some sort of rant. However, he took the time to attend and showed respect to the House — respect that was not shown earlier today by people who claim to be defenders of the democratic principles. Those people showed up to lead us all a merry dance, to pull a motion and to leave us all high and dry.
I congratulate him for doing what the Assembly mandated him to do, and that is to carry on with his job at a very difficult time when others are threatening to pull the institutions down around us.
It is not just DUP stunts that have disrupted schools. JimWells may have shown up spontaneously at Kilkeel school, but the television cameras just happened to show up along with him. Perhaps the pupils had their own PR operation. However, it is not only the silly protests which the DUP organise that are disrupting schools. There have been instances in my own area, an area with which the Chairman of the Education Committee should be quite familiar. At Forkhill Primary School a helicopter flying overhead to a BritishArmy base, which dwarfs that primary school, dropped its full cargo in the playground. At StPaul’s in Bessbrook, Olevel and Alevel students were forced to protest publicly on the road outside their school about disruption during their exams caused by the constant hovering of helicopters above the school. [Interruption]
It may hurt some people to hear this, but there are two sides to every story.
Last December a heavily armed BritishArmy foot patrol entered the grounds of StJoseph’s Primary School, Bessbrook, much to the distress of children who were leaving the nursery. In January this year another BritishArmy foot patrol entered school grounds during class time, and when they were challenged by the staff —

Mr Danny Kennedy: Does the Member not accept that the terrorist warfare organised and instituted by SinnFéin/IRA, particularly in an area such as south Armagh, has caused all these things? It is very important that security considerations be met and that there be a response to the security requirements. These situations were brought about entirely by the actions of SinnFéin/IRA and the Republican movement.

Mr Conor Murphy: The Member is well aware that in the last four years, since the ceasefire has been organised, there have been no such events in that area, and I am not aware of any allegation that the nursery school children of Bessbrook primary school were carrying out activities against the BritishArmy.
When the school staff challenged members of the foot patrol about walking through school grounds they were met with indifference and hostility. Sadly, the Chairman of the Education Committee — I am glad he intervened — found this case a source of great amusement when it was brought to his attention in the council chamber. He did not even express concern that this should be happening in a primary school in his own constituency. However, that does not surprise me, given his ‘Alice in Wonderland’ speech earlier. It seems that he is not attached to this planet by very much.
Another case is that of GlassdrummanPrimary School. The BritishArmy decided to build a spy post close by and fly dozens of helicopter flights above it daily. The parents organised themselves in order to oppose this. They have banded together and taken their case to the NIO Ministers, but so far it has fallen on deaf ears.
To add insult, in December last year the RUC asked if they could attend GlassdrummanPrimary School. When the principal told them that they would not be welcome the RUC turned up and forced their way on to the school grounds. This incident was brought to the attention of the media, but for some strange reason they did not find this a worthy news story. I have to compare that with the hullabaloo they created around Pomeroy, Carrickmore and other such places.
It is unfortunate when time in Adjournment debates is wasted, and I regret that I had to put the counter to the disruption that the DUP talked about by raising the matter of the disruption that happens from their friends in the military. I agree with FrancieMolloy and EamonONeill. Time in the Chamber should be spent on debating the important issues in education — issues that cause real disruption in schools.
Once again I congratulate the Minister for not being deterred by such silly motions or by so-called spontaneous protests organised in schools, but for getting on with the job that the Assembly mandated him to do.

Mr Martin McGuinness: A Chathaoirligh, I am grateful to MrWilson for raising the issue of disruption in schools and providing an opportunity for discussion of this important issue. I was appointed Minister of Education as part of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, which, as we all know, was overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate, both North and South.
That agreement created new political arrangements under which locally elected representatives of all parties can work together to create a better future for all of our people, and I intend to play a full part in that.
I understand that many people continue to carry pain and hurt from all that has happened in the past and that many have fears and concerns about the future. These uncertainties affect all of us. However, I would like to stress, as I have done on a number of occasions since my appointment as Minister of Education, that I am totally committed to promoting the interests of all our children and ensuring that they are treated in a fair and equal manner. I will do my utmost to ensure that our education service continues to improve the standards of teaching and learning for all.
While I recognise the concerns of some parents and pupils, I was disappointed that pupils in a minority of schools decided to leave their schools to protest against my appointment. I support the right of young people to express their views through protest, but I am also concerned at the effect that these disruptions may have on the education of the children involved and at the risk potential when pupils are out of school without authorisation and supervision. These disruptions have caused considerable distress and anxiety to staff in the schools affected. They have worked hard, and with considerable success over the years, to keep the focus within schools firmly on education. They have done, and continue to do, a fantastic job, and I would like to express my thanks for and admiration of their work.
For their sake, and for the sake of the pupils, I am glad that these disruptions have ended. It is regrettable, however, that those politicians who mysteriously appeared within minutes at the supposedly impromptu protests did not bear these considerations in mind. One wonders whose interests they really have at heart.
Of course, not all pupils who protested chose to leave school; others took a more constructive approach and wrote to me. They protested, and they set out their concerns. Some of them actually asked to meet with me, and I was pleased to discuss the issues face to face with young people from a controlled secondary school. We had a productive and civilised exchange of views. That, I believe, is the way in which these matters should be resolved.
It is dialogue that my visits to schools are intended to promote. As a new Minister, I have a lot to learn about education, but I am learning fast. I am anxious to learn about the issues from those who are at the chalkface, those who are delivering the service in the schools, as well as from my departmental officials and others involved in the administration of education.
I intend to visit as many schools as I can, and I have many outstanding invitations. However, I will be visiting only schools to which I have been invited. My visits to date have been extremely enlightening. I have seen the excellent work which teachers are doing, often in difficult circumstances and in poor conditions, and I have listened to the issues that concern them and their pupils. I intend to build on this constructive dialogue so that collectively we can ensure the best education possible for all our children.
A number of issues were raised. SammyWilson’s contribution was generally good-humoured, and I thank him for that, although he did somewhat confuse the towns of Carrickmore and Carrickfergus. Nevertheless, I totally agree with him that the performance tables which were published today by my Department are good news. They show a steady rise in standards. I would like to congratulate all in the education system, both teachers and pupils, for their hard work and success.
The issue of the proposed visit by the Duchessof Abercorn to StMary’s Primary School in Pomeroy was raised by SammyWilson. I believe that I made it clear during QuestionTime yesterday that who visits a particular school is a matter for the school principal and the chairman of the board of governors. This is a well-established departmental policy, and it will continue.
Where there is a disagreement over a visit, I hope that it will be settled amicably by the people directly involved. As Members will be aware, I have spoken to the principal of the school, and I am confident that this matter can be resolved satisfactorily.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. Was this debate not to close at sixo’clock?

Mr Speaker: I said at the start that I would give fiveminutes to each Member and 10minutes to the Minister.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Can one run after sixo’clock if that time is on the OrderPaper?

Mr Speaker: Yes. I shall run after sixo’clock, since, as I said, the time that points of order take does not come out of the time allocated to Members.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am quite happy, but I would not wish anyone to think that one could do that for the Minister and not for others.

Mr Speaker: Indeed. On Mondays the requirement is for interruption at sixo’clock. That is in Standing Orders. As the Member will be aware, Standing Orders were suspended today, so time is not quite so tight. In any case, it is a Tuesday.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I should also like to thank DannyKennedy for his contribution. I do not imagine that he will ever win the PushkinPrize, but I look forward to hearing many more of his yarns at the Education Committee.
EamonnONeill made a particularly thoughtful contribution on discipline in schools. This is an important issue. Each school is required to have a policy for the promotion of good behaviour and discipline among its pupils. The content of a school’s discipline policy and its rules and sanctions are matters for the school. Guidelines on what should be included are in preparation and will be issued later this year. Resources have been made available for the development of pupil referral units to help schools deal with particularly disruptive pupils.
NormanBoyd raised the issue of my visits to schools. As I said earlier, I consider school visits to be an important aspect of my job, since they give me an opportunity to listen to the views of teachers and pupils. I shall visit only those schools to which I am invited, and I have had invitations to schools of all management types.
There are many challenges facing the education system as we move into the twenty-first century. We have to deal with low achievement; there are challenges in the school estate; we want to increase access and participation; and we want to promote a culture of tolerance and respect for diversity among our people. In addressing these challenges, I shall be guided by the principles of promoting excellence, providing choice, enhancing accessibility and ensuring equality.
It is indeed vital that our schools provide the skills and knowledge which children need to enable them to be fulfilled and to succeed in life. The economy and society need them to in order to thrive. That is the agenda to which I am working. It is an education agenda. It is an agenda for all our children, and I hope that Members will judge my success as Minister of Education against it. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is in order for the Minister to mislead the House? My party made it very clear that it was not involved in organising the protest against his appointments.

Mr Speaker: Order. That matter was raised earlier, and I ruled that it was not a point of order.
Adjourned at 6.03 pm.